"Would you like some candy, little boy?"
Posted on 06/25/2008 1:20:59 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
A Massachusetts politician and defense attorney has touched off a firestorm with his shocking public vow to torment and "rip apart" child rape victims who take the witness stand if the state legislature passed stiff mandatory sentences for child sex offenders.
Rep. James Fagan, a Democrat, made the comments during debate last month on the state House floor.
"I'm gonna rip them apart," Fagan said of young victims during his testimony on the bill. "I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they’re 8 years old, they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”
Fagan said as a defense attorney it would be his duty to do that in order to keep his clients free from a "mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions."
Fagan did not respond to repeated requests for comment from FOXNews.com.
His remarks drew the ire of local activists as well as colleagues.
“I thought his comments were over the top and unnecessary,” Massachusetts House Minority Leader Bradley Jones told FOXNews.com on Wednesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
That's all I need to know...he is probably doing it for the chiren'.
In the old days, the town would take care of vermin like this. Nowadays, they elect them to public office.
Definitely a sick puke.
Watching TV this guy was really mouthing off about what he’d do in court. I’d say there’s a darned good chance this guy is already DOING IT TO THE CHILDREN.
I bet BOR will lead with this tonight. He’s been pushing hard for the adoption of Jessica’s Law.
Fagan is absolutely right. This would be the unintended consequence of this law. Without the ability to deal down, defendants will have every incentive to defend themselves aggressively.
You can't blame Fagan for forseeing the obvious.
There’s a special place in hell for this guy.
This guy should be disbarred.
You know, over the years I have had beef with BOR over a lot of things, but when it comes to stuff like this he is the best person out there to get word to. I have to give credit where credit is due.
And BTW you mean he doesn't currently use all legal ethical means to defend his clients, he will only get tough if the penalties are increased? I doubt child rape is a light offense to begin with, even in Massachussetts.
Gotta love those whacky lawyers...after they have been skinned and their hide nailed to the barn.
That tape was on BOR last night.
Disbarred and permanently confined to a psychiatric hospital.
He’s real tough on kids isn’t he?
He’s real tough on kids isn’t he?
How would attacking the child victim of a rapist on the stand go over with the jury? Would they be more inclined to convict Fagan’s client after that, or less?
I think this guy Fagan (perfect name for his line of work, by the way) is a liar as well as a sadist.
In making this pronouncement, Rep. Fagan can't hide behind either the ethical duty of a defense attorney to his client, or the severity of the penalty imposed for the offense.
First, the duty of zealous defense pertains no matter the potential sentence. Instead, Fagen was espousing a cost/benefit strategy of intimidation and retribution against a witness in response to the severity of the potential punishment.
Second, he's admitting an ulterior, harmful purpose to questioning a witness in a court of law – not just a side effect of that questioning – other than eliciting relevant facts from a potential witness.
As to an ethics violation, in a criminal trial, the victim is a “third party” (i.e., it’s the state vs. defendant). From the rules of professional ethics:
RULE 4.4 RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF THIRD PERSONS
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.
Comment
[1] Responsibility to a client requires a lawyer to subordinate the interests of others to those of the client, but that responsibility does not imply that a lawyer may disregard the rights of third persons. It is impractical to catalogue all such rights, but they include legal restrictions on methods of obtaining evidence from third persons.
Corresponding ABA Model Rule. Identical to Model Rule 4.4.
Corresponding Former Massachusetts Rule. DR 7-106 (C) (2); see also DR 1-102, 7-102(A).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.