More Dem Depravity
By James Taranto:
Man Without a Party
The Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is considering passing a "Jessica's law." Named after 12-year-old Jessica Lunsford, who was raped and murdered by a repeat sex offender, the proposed law would require a mandatory 20-year prison sentence for anyone convicted of raping a child under 12.
The Boston Herald reports that Rep. James Fagan is a critic of the legislation:
Fagan, a defense attorney, infuriated victims' rights advocates during a recent House debate when he said he would "rip apart" 6-year-old victims on the witness stand and "make sure the rest of their life is ruined."
In a fiery soliloquy on the House floor, Fagan said he'd grill victims so 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 did not return calls seeking comment.
What political party does Fagan belong to? The Herald doesn't say, but we'll give you three guesses.
Comments
We may not like what Fagan said but its reality, any good defense attorney will tear the victim to shreds to get their client free. Until our laws regarding child victims are changed to protect the victims during court proceedings, we can expect victim after victim to be victimized again in court. With tough laws like Jessica's law, it going to be worse then it already is. Im all for extremely harsh laws regarding sex offenders, but first the victims need protected, protected from a system based on adult witnesses where anything goes. Its already hard enough to prosecute predators because of the possible court attacks against the victims, the law will take it to a new level and victims will be more and more afraid to testify because of actions just like those Fagan mentions.
First off, do you have a link to that? I ask because I agree that the quote the article provided was a partial quote, and as such, it may not fairly represent either the words or the intent of the person who said the words.
However, even if this jackass was speculating about what other attorneys would do, his conduct was still outrageous because A) it takes a certain kind of scumbag to think the way he does and to put it into words, and B) the questions an attorney can ask in court are dependent on the discretion of the judge and the sensibilities of the court (judge, jury, spectators) In other words, even if an attorney could get away with the sort of conduct this guy describes, it's questionable at best that such tactics would be in the best interests of his client.
That said, the rest of your comment is immaterial - it has nothing to do with the point Mr. Taranto was making - that the most reprehensible statements and actions by Democrats, when they are reported by the media, rarely mention party affiliation.
Nevertheless, addressing your comment, victims certainly need protection, but that is not an excuse for not passing a much needed law:
"the law will take it to a new level and victims will be more and more afraid to testify because of actions just like those Fagan mentions"
Yet you don't mention how it would make things worse than they already are? My supposition is that you think, as the Fagan seems to be saying, that other attorneys will be as outrageous as he is because the stakes would be higher?
If so, I hope there's something I'm missing, because I'm not buying that.
Now to sum up, this is not a thread about the efficacy of the proposed law, it's about the conduct of an individual and the media's failure to identify the political party involved.
True it was outrageous but sometimes the truth is outrageous. Have you ever experienced a trial where the rape victim is a child? If you havent which im pretty sure you havent, you will be horrified at what those children go threw at the hands of defense attorneys and our court system. You may not buy it, im not asking you to take my word for it, ask any parent who has ever had a child that was a victim or ask any person thats ever been that victim as a child and that child has had to go to court and testify. What they tell you they went through in court will piss you off more then Fagans words. Especially girls around the ages 10 and up.
Im not saying the law shouldnt be put in place, the law is badly needed, but it doesnt excuse our obligation to protect the victims from further harm.
Thanks for the link, now we're getting somewhere.
Your posting the start of the comment seemed to be mitigating for the dirtbag. Now I don't know whether you did it intentionally or not, but you left out the part between your last word and where the Herald cut in, and what you left out restores the exact picture that you seem to have intended your opening line to soften, to wit:
"that 6-year-old is going to sit in front of me, or somebody far worse than me"
Wow, so as awful as this guy is, and "awful" doesn't adequately describe him, he's saying that he's one of the nicer if his ilk. Lovely. Not only that, he used bad grammar... it should have been "than I."
So in the end, your link restored the original point - that this guy is scum, and so is his party, and no one detailed the association.
And in addition to revealing himself to be a dirtbag's dirtbag, he failed utterly in making his point since, apparently, he's using the same sort of tactics now in his sick and sleazy endeavor.
And if I may say a word about your observation that sometimes the truth is outrageous, that doesn't mean that one needs to lay it all out there to make his point. In fact, that's the trouble with much of society today - nothing disgusting is held back. But what's worse is, the truth you see him conveying is not a truth he wants rectified. In other words, he wasn't begging the lawmakers to curb his ability to be as vile as he wants to be, he was merely stating the tactics he'd utilize without any pangs of conscience, and that, in fact, he was not describing some new future if the law passed, he was describing what he already does.
In that regard, I think your article was even better than the one Taranto cited at showing what a reprehensible excuse for a human being this guy is, so I greatly appreciate your input.