Mandatory Minimums Protect Us From Judges Run Amuck
Criminal defense lawyer turned MA State Representative James Fagan’s comments on Jessica’s Law aren’t surprising. Criminal defense attorneys don’t have souls, right?
“Let me tell you why it’s so wrong,” said Fagan (D-Taunton). “It’s so wrong because in these situations . . . that 6-year-old is going to sit in front of me, or somebody far worse than me and I’m going to rip them apart. 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. And that’s not because I’m a nice guy. That’s because when you’re in court, and you’re defending somebody’s liberty, and you’re facing a mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions, you have to do every single thing you can do on behalf of your client. That is your obligation as a trial lawyer.”
Fagan, who opposed Melanie’s Law, also criticized laws named in honor of victims, calling such measures “knee-jerk” legislation.
First, I would not hire Fagan as an attorney. Anyone who thinks he’d earn points with a jury by tearing into a 6 year old on the stand isn’t much of an attorney. I doubt even a Cambridge jury would take kindly to that tactic.
Second, 20 years doesn’t seem “draconian” when measured against the life sentence that the victim got from the perpetrator. But again, you have to have a soul to consider the victim’s travails.
Next, whenever these laws are considered, emotions run high. Normal people–read not criminal defense attorneys and judges–empathize with the victim and family. However, I strongly disagree with the notion that these laws are a “knee-jerk”, emotional reactions.
Mandatory minimums is the logical response to bleeding heart judges whose first inclination is sympathy for the offenders. If MA judges had the good sense to take child rapists off the streets, we wouldn’t even be talking about mandatory minimums. But instead of protecting children, far too many judges slap these highly dangerous criminals on the wrists.
If Representative Fagan is worried about the damage of cross-examination, he should work on reforming the way judges are selected, disciplined, and retained. Until the judicial process experiences some massive reform, mandatory minimums is the only option that the people have to defend themselves against judges who refuse to defend us and our children.
Archived in: James Fagan, Jessica's Law, judges, mandatory minimums, MassachusettsJune 24, 2008 at 5:26 pm | Trackback
11 comments
Thank you. Thank you for stating what should be obvious to good people. That fact that our courts and now our politicians are more concerned with these monsters and not children is horrifying!!
Thank you for your comment, Mother of 2.
Common sense knows our children are at risk, as are our jobs, our homes, our schools, and our Rights as we inherited them.
We are the majority but will have to be lead by our own Common Sense if anything is to truly change for the better this coming election. I urgently believe the only thing standing in the way of reclaimation is the number of People of Common Sense who decide to stay home on election day as opposed to the number who get out there!
People who choose to speak up, just as you have done here will strengthen and energize others who are numb and feeling helpless against this stinking Government-on-Steroids.
Good point about why you wouldn’t hire Fagan. I suppose that why he’s in the public defender’s business where his clients never actually hire him — they get stuck with him. He just part of government infrastructure and hopefully this outrage can be used to help finish off his career.
How can we get this clown out office? I live in Taunton and am ashamed of him. Isn’t there a conflict of interest here? He is a trial lawyer and benefits from the state handing him cases.
Knee jerking?…He ain’t seen nuthin yet…
Rep.JamesFagan@hou.state.ma.us
Fagan, who opposed Melanie’s Law, also criticized laws named in honor of victims, calling such measures “knee-jerk” legislation.
http://bostonherald.com/news/r.....ition=also
Call me crazy but I thought I heard something about a sticker campaign for an opponent who will run against him…
We’re out here, Jerry, along with all the rest of us like-minded people! Use the search line on your browser and with persistence you’ll find links to our little sparks here in New England. Check out the links NER provides on site here and tune in to Michael Graham on WTKK, 96.9, Boston. The station is online at http://www.wtkk.com/ and if you click on the radio tower icon in the upper right hand portion of the home page you can catch Michael from 9:00 am to 12:00 am..
Just don’t give up!
I would hope that the assclown Fagan loses in the next election, but let his opponent have the least bit of a conservative position on any political issue and Fagan’s comrades will be claiming that the opponent wants to legalize cross-burning; bring back slavery; keep women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen; let children buy guns at stop & robs, etc.
If Fagan decides not to run, his successor will be someone who politically identical to him, just that Fagan’s successor will not have the “baggage” of that ridiculous tirade in defence of the indefensible.
Helen
I did not know he did the same thing for Melanie’s Law! He is more concerned with the perp than the victim! It is things like this that makes me want to run against him. I am not a lawyer but I have common sense! I do like Michael Graham and have called his show a number of times.
Wow, you MA folks are angry. I love it.
Can’t we make crimes against children Hate Crimes and take them out of the States hands?
Jerry
That’s a pretty slippery approach, Jerry. Hate crime is a vague concept. Taking things out of the state’s hands? Do you mean to federalize these crimes? Where interstate issues come into play, that’s already done.
Jerry:
That would work as long as the perps were white male “heterosexuals” going after young girls. If the didlers were of the Gagin or Scondras persuasion, you can bet the victim would be charged with a hate crime against the light-loafer crowd.