Jun
25
Massachusetts Rep: “Draconian” sentencing guidelines will force me to make little girls cry
June 25, 2008 | 3 Comments
There are low forms of humanity, and then there is Massachusetts State Representative James Fagan. He took the floor of the State House in order to attack a law that would mandate a 20-year sentence for anyone convicted of raping someone under the age of 12. It’s bad enough that Fagan opposes the bill, but his argument on the floor will truly disgust you.
“Let me tell you why it’s so wrong, 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.”
Needless to say this guy isn’t doing anything to help the reputation of lawyers.
There are countless things wrong with this, but what strikes me as particularly odd is that it seems Rep. Fagan is sugegsting that he wouldn’t try as hard to build a strong case for his client absent the mandatory sentencing guidelines. As Charles Signorile writes at Constitutionally Right:
While it is true that it is a defense attorney’s obligation to defend his or her client to the best of his of her ability, that is true in all cases. Mr. Fagan would have you believe that he would be harsher in his cross examination of the victim if his client is facing 20 years then if he was only facing 5 years. His illogical, and downright offense argument is that by mandating a sentence of 20 years, the State legislature will be victimizing the child by forcing him and his peers to traumatize the little girl on the witness stand. In essence, he argues that the only way to prevent him from “ruining” her life, is by offering leniency to the child rapist in the hopes he does not attack another young girl.
Comments
3 Comments so far
There are times when words are not enough. This is one of them.
Truncheons and curbstomping would be the order of the day, for this attorney and his client.
[...] order to attack a law that would mandate a 20-year sentence for anyone convicted of raping … credit : [...]
As if this elected shyster wouldn’t act like a class A jerk in court no matter what sentence his client was facing. I love his logic, don’t enhance the penalty for an offense because I, and other jerks like me, may attack the credibility of witnesses in court. Take it from someone who has defended hundreds of accused felons, a defense attorney will use any tactic within the law he thinks to be effective in order prevent his client from being acquitted. Using this fact of life as an argument against the enhancement of sentences is brazen stupidity.