The Mass. state rep who wants to rip apart 6 year old rape victims is a lawyer. While it is interestingly not mentioned in the article, he is also a Democrat.



Jessica’s Law dad blasts Mass. rep

By Dave Wedge - Boston Herald | Tuesday, June 24, 2008

The father of a slain Florida girl pushing for mandatory prison time for child rapists in the Bay State is blasting a Taunton lawmaker who said he’d torment young victims on the witness stand to defend his perv clients.

“Why doesn’t he figure out a way to defend that child and put these kind of people away instead of trying to figure ways for defense attorneys to get around Jessica’s Law?” Mark Lunsford fumed, slamming recent remarks by Rep. James Fagan. “These are very serious crimes that nobody wants to take serious. What about the rights of these children?”

Lunsford, whose daughter Jessica was raped and murdered in Florida by a repeat sex offender, will be in Massachusetts tomorrow to push lawmakers to pass Jessica’s Law, which would require a 20-year sentence for rape of a child under 12. The House passed a watered-down version of the bill last week but Lunsford and other victims’ rights activists will be pushing the Senate to include mandatory prison time in the final law.

“If this bill is not going to put these people away, don’t disrespect me by putting my daughter’s name on it,” Lunsford told the Herald last night. “You have to put these guys in prison and admit these people are uncurable.”

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.

Rep. Karyn Polito, a Republican from Shrewsbury who supports Jessica’s Law, said of Fagan’s comments: “The words speak for themselves. I think there’s a large part of the (House) membership that doesn’t agree with that.”

Fagan also called Jessica’s Law “knee-jerk” legislation and said “every time the Legislature has named a law after somebody, it has been a failure.”

That comment angered Ron Bersani, grandfather of Melanie Powell, whose death at the hands of a drunken driver inspired Melanie’s Law, which hiked OUI penalties.

“Absolutely ridiculous,” Bersani said. “I would beg to differ with Rep. Fagan.”

Bersani also took issue with Fagan’s characterization of such laws as “knee-jerk.”

“I find that description despicable,” Bersani said. “It’s a lot easier to call it knee-jerk when it’s not your daughter or granddaughter.”

If you look carefully at the story, the point Rep. Fagan is trying to make (badly) is that mandatory or mandatory minimum sentences in sex cases virtually guarantee a trial, with the attendant trauma to the child witness. This has happened in Iowa, where even the Iowa County Attorney's Association argued against mandatory minimums and was greeted with a sarcastic "what's the matter, are you afraid to go to trial"? They aren't, generally, but would have liked the discrection to avoid a trial where the victim witness might be raped again.

I'm certainly not arguing for light sentences for child molesters. You do, however, have to balance the need to look tough on crime with the potential harm you cause by doing so.

Every judge I've heard speak on the subject and every criminal law professor I've had all agree - mandatory minimum sentencing is a horrible idea. It completely ties the hands of the judges to do what they do best - JUDGE.

And I agree, most laws named after a specific victim is a knee jerk reaction to one instance and are usually poorly thought out and tend to do more harm than good.

quote:

Originally posted by bailaw:
If you look carefully at the story, the point Rep. Fagan is trying to make (badly) is that mandatory or mandatory minimum sentences in sex cases virtually guarantee a trial, with the attendant trauma to the child witness. This has happened in Iowa, where even the Iowa County Attorney's Association argued against mandatory minimums and was greeted with a sarcastic "what's the matter, are you afraid to go to trial"? They aren't, generally, but would have liked the discrection to avoid a trial where the victim witness might be raped again.

I'm certainly not arguing for light sentences for child molesters. You do, however, have to balance the need to look tough on crime with the potential harm you cause by doing so.

I agree with you bailaw, it's too bad some partisan folks are more interested in scoring political points, or taking a cheap shot at lawyers, than they are in whats right and wrong here.

The reason for mandatory sentencing is BECAUSE
of bad judges. They give weak sentences,
they get overturned all the time and we can't
get rid of a bad judge.
ie a local judge several years ago gave a
drunk driver who killed somebody a home detention, which within Weeks was caught in
Iowa city drunk driving again.
The people want tough sentences but our judges
just don't have the stones to use them.

quote:

Originally posted by King Kong:
“Why doesn’t he figure out a way to defend that child and put these kind of people away instead of trying to figure ways for defense attorneys to get around Jessica’s Law?” Mark Lunsford fumed, slamming recent remarks by Rep. James Fagan. “These are very serious crimes that nobody wants to take serious. What about the rights of these children?”

Why? Because if he's hired or appointed as the defendant's attorney, failure to vicariously represent his clients best interests will get him disbarred. Even if that means making it tough on a six year old victim. Now is that unfortunate for the six year old? Of course. Is it the defense attorney's concern when the six year old is accusing his client of rape? Not at all - at least not if he's a good attorney.

It is however, the concern of the prosecuting attorney. Allowing the prosecuting attorney the flexability to come up with a fair plea and sentence that all parties can agree with serves the public both by 1) punishing/rehabilitating the defendant and 2) protecting the victim from any further stress/embarrassment/trama that goes with reliving the events in court. Taking that tool away from the prosecuting attorney serves no one.

It always seems to me that those outside the legal profession in legislature are the ones always pushing for the mandatory minimums as they don't really grasp how the process works. So then we're left with people who don't understand the process making claims on how the process should be done.

And KK, the lawyer shouldn't be shot, unless you like shooting people who are RIGHT. I guess I can sleep better at night knowing that you obviously don't know what you're talking about and be thankful that its not you who makes the decision who is allowed to live and who gets shot. I would agree that the attorney's "fiery soliloquy on the House floor" was a bit over the top, but no more over the top for you implying that he should be killed for his beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by Conn:
The reason for mandatory sentencing is BECAUSE
of bad judges. They give weak sentences,
they get overturned all the time and we can't
get rid of a bad judge.
ie a local judge several years ago gave a
drunk driver who killed somebody a home detention, which within Weeks was caught in
Iowa city drunk driving again.
The people want tough sentences but our judges
just don't have the stones to use them.

The reason for mandatory minimum sentences was because they scored cheap political points with uninformed voters - who were led to believe the new guidelines actually made them safer.

I WOULD feel safer if drunk drivers were actually put in jail for a set time.

I'm sure most parents would feel safer if
molesters did serve a long time in prison.

Why is it when common sense voters opt for
strict sentencing we are uniformed?

How long do you think a child rapist should be
in jail? 1 year,5 years, 10 years?

quote:

Originally posted by Conn:
I WOULD feel safer if drunk drivers were actually put in jail for a set time.

I'm sure most parents would feel safer if
molesters did serve a long time in prison.

Why is it when common sense voters opt for
strict sentencing we are uniformed?

How long do you think a child rapist should be
in jail? 1 year,5 years, 10 years?

How long would you like your daughter/granddaughter/sister on the witness stand discussing her vagina in a room full of strangers at the age of 6?

However long it took to get the facts out
and then if he was convicted I'd kill him.

quote:

Originally posted by Conn:
However long it took to get the facts out
and then if he was convicted I'd kill him.

Of course you would.

We do have a mandatory sentence for that.

quote:

Originally posted by bailaw:

quote:

Originally posted by Conn:
I WOULD feel safer if drunk drivers were actually put in jail for a set time.

I'm sure most parents would feel safer if
molesters did serve a long time in prison.

Why is it when common sense voters opt for
strict sentencing we are uniformed?

How long do you think a child rapist should be
in jail? 1 year,5 years, 10 years?

How long would you like your daughter/granddaughter/sister on the witness stand discussing her vagina in a room full of strangers at the age of 6?

And what about protecting the next 6 year old from attack by the guy who gets out of prison after serving a short sentence? How would you feel bailaw if that was your daughter/granddaughter/sister?

I am glad cwh that you can sleep at night. I am not sure I could after supporting someone who proudly states he is willing to psychologically destroy a small child.

I do understand the concept of how mandatory responses tie the hands. The so-called "zero tolerance" policies for school "weapons" is a good example - kids were being suspended for bringing a dull table knife to school to cut up an apple. However, there needs to be some strong sentencing guidelines to prevent short sentences for violent offenders.

Truthfully, KK, I would probably be in the same cell block as Conn. Also truthfully, any sentence for a pedophile short of life is probably not an effective deterrent. The fact remains, however, that in an effort to make a tough on crime statement to troll for votes, the mandatory sentencing proponents fail to consider the serious downsides to their posturing.

Bailaw, Sorry we don't have a mandatory sentence for killing a child molester.
You could get off several ways.
Jury nullification, they could find you innocent, the arresting officer could accidentally forget to read you your rights.
I'd take my chances but that pervert would be
dead.