Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on June 25, 2008, 10:08:10 AM
-
There was a debate in the Massachusetts House over Jessica's law.
Some lawyer named F-A-G-A-N had this to add to the discussion; F-A-G-A-N is also a State Rep.
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view/2008_06_24_Jessica_s_Law_story/srvc=home&position=also
F-A-G-A-N 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, F-A-G-A-N 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.”
Jesscia's law would require a 20-year sentence for rape of a child under 12. Apparently F-A-G-A-N, a defense attorney thinks that's too harsh and he'd have to hammer the victim on the stand to save his client from such a terrible fate.
Gee, a speech like that just makes me feel so sorry for F-A-G-A-N mother.
<EDIT> lol, I guess the filter won't let you say F-A-G-A-N without the dashes.
-
sadly...there are many on the far left who agree with this. the rift between left and right in american is coming to a head........and I would not be opossed to allowing the ubber left to all move to california and start their own country.
-
sadly...there are many on the far left who agree with this. the rift between left and right in american is coming to a head........and I would not be opossed to allowing the ubber left to all move to california and start their own country.
(http://www.meateatingleftist.com/mt/archives/jesusland.gif)
IT'S COMING
-
this works for me
:snicker:
-
I can't help but think that maybe F-A-G-A-N, Esq. is just making a point. Sometimes legislation has unintended effects. I can easily see some of those bottom feeding 'lawyers" out there going for the throat when defending clients against mandatory sentences. I don't think it is an exaggeration that the cases will be fought harder - as long as clients will pay $$$$$$$
-
What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start.
A bus with 45 lawyers was on its way to a lawyers convention when it went over the side of a cliff killing all on board. Too bad the other 5 seats were empty.
-
wow, wtf is wrong with that guy?!? OMG dude. :huh :huh
studmuffinan, 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.”
Oh my god... Thats just sick. I bet he's a sex offender...
-
anyone who TRIES to molest my kids wont have to worry about court.
the worms will be eating them soon enough.
-
If I'm ever falsely accused of such a crime I would want my defense attorney to do just that. The "Nifong" (see Duke lacrosse rape case) who has decided to railroad me into prison to enhance his future political career will certainly not be willing to show reasonableness or fairness or cut me any breaks -- even if evidence develops during the process that casts doubt on the prosecution.
Charon
-
If I'm ever falsely accused of such a crime I would want my defense attorney to do just that. The "Nifong" (see Duke lacrosse rape case) who has decided to railroad me into prison to enhance his future political career will certainly not be willing to show reasonableness or fairness or cut me any breaks -- even if evidence develops during the process that casts doubt on the prosecution.
Charon
If some stranger had his way with your kids, would you want a defense lawyer doing what he said he'd to to those kids?
-
If some stranger had his way with your kids, would you want a defense lawyer doing what he said he'd to those kids?
Of course not, but if you believe in the rule of law, it's unavoidable. But equally, if you’re sitting up there wrongly accused would you want your defense attorney taking half measures when your freedom is on the line? Why even have a trial otherwise, unless it's just a show trial in advance of the lynching. I guess the duke lacrosse players should be rotting away in jail now, right? They were charged with the crime, right? Must be guilty, right?
First off, I’m no lawyer, but I find it hard to believe that such an approach against such a young child would be beneficial in almost any case in front of a jury – from a practical manner. Even so, what about these cases where hysteria and believing children whose testimony had been manipulated by unqualified investigators ruins lives? Are children off limits where justice is concerned?
The McMartin preschool fiasco is one I'm familiar with. Saw the TV movie even. All sorts of accusations of sexual and other abuse. People stood trial, lives were ruined and almost, much worse. Fortunately they had defense attorneys that took the years and made the effort to prevent the worst from happening to innocent people. Almost surreal, except for how deadly serious it was to those on trial.
McMartin preschool trial
Main article: McMartin preschool trial
"The case began in August 1983 when the mother of a 2 1/2 year-old boy reported to police that her son had been abused by Raymond Buckey at the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California."[1] After seven years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990. As of 2006, it is the longest and most expensive trial in the history of the United States. The accusations involved hidden tunnels, killing animals, Satan worship, and orgies.[4]
Nine of 11 jurors at a press conference following the trial stated that they believed the children's testimony. These same jurors stated that they believed that the evidence did not allow them to state who had committed the abuse beyond a reasonable doubt. [5]
In 2005, newspapers reported that a former student had completely retracted his story and said he lied, attempting to protect his younger siblings and to please his parents. [6]
In The Devil in The Nursery, Margaret Talbot for the New York Times summarized the case:
When you once believed something that now strikes you as absurd, even unhinged, it can be almost impossible to summon that feeling of credulity again. Maybe that is why it is easier for most of us to forget, rather than to try and explain, the Satanic-abuse scare that gripped this country in the early 80's -- the myth that Devil-worshipers had set up shop in our day-care centers, where their clever adepts were raping and sodomizing children, practicing ritual sacrifice, shedding their clothes, drinking blood and eating feces, all unnoticed by parents, neighbors and the authorities. [7]
David Hechler, author of The Battle and the Backlash - The Child Sexual Abuse War, states:
“What happened at the McMartin Preschool will be debated for a long time. Few aspects of the case are clear, but it requires no strain of credulity to believe that the children could have been abused at the facility without being diagnosed by a pediatrician.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
And there's more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sexual_abuse_hysteria
Not all of these had the "happy"" ending of the McMartin case.
The Salem Witch trials are another, older example.
So yeah, I guess I would actually want to make sure the crime was real in the first place, and that if it was, the real rapist is actually punished for the crime. But again, for all his talk I can't really see abusing a young child on the stand in front of a jury of our "peers" as being a beneficial tactic.
BTW, I have no problem with the 20 years mandatory prison time as long as the defendant was allowed a fair trial and had competent representation. In fact, 20 years seems a bit short. It's hard to see any need for judicial sentencing leeway when the victim is under age 12.
Charon
-
what some people fail to see is that an attorney is responsible to do the very best for his client. if you ever find yourself in a situation where you need a lawyer and have to work closely with a lawyer perhaps you will see things in a different light.
they are people, some take the high road others do not just like in any other profession. personally I thank God for my attorney he's a good man and a good friend.
-
Yup...what Storch said. I'd hire him.
-
The bigger thing here is the Supreme Court, yet aGAIN, has invalidated the will of the majority of a state with no legal basis
"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.
Kennedy said the absence of any executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."
He neglected to mention the fact that said executions rarely occur because earlier Supreme Courts decided they were illegal...NOT the voters
-
what some people fail to see is that an attorney is responsible to do the very best for his client. if you ever find yourself in a situation where you need a lawyer and have to work closely with a lawyer perhaps you will see things in a different light.
they are people, some take the high road others do not just like in any other profession. personally I thank God for my attorney he's a good man and a good friend.
Well they pretty much took him apart tonight and came to the conclusion he has never questioned a young witness in open court. No judge would allow a defense lawyer to psychologically abuse a child in court, and nothing would turn a jury against a defendant quicker than phsychologically abusing a child in court.
Overlooking that incredible mistake on his part, the other huge mistake is pretending a defense lawyers diligence is dictated by the possible sentence (i.e., his point was with such a harsh sentence for child molesters, defense lawyers would become meaner). That guy is a tool, and an idiot on so many levels.
-
If some stranger had his way with your kids, would you want a defense lawyer doing what he said he'd to to those kids?
Sadly, most kids are molested by a relative or close friend of the family - or authority figure - priest, minister, teacher, coach etc...
dont worry about the strangers... worry about the ones who want to be with your kids .. I came to the conclusion a long time ago.. I trust no one... and I constantly tell my wife - Remember John Wayne Gacy was a clown at childrens parties.... and he, til he died insisted he was innocent...
Also ... no lawyer can question a 6 year old in court like that...and that poor lawyer has to do whatever it takes to get his client off - he can lose his license if he doesn't - unless we in this country want to eliminate the malpractice insurance settlements overloads - it is in his / her best interest to do whatever it takes within the law to do his best for his client.
NwBie
-
Well they pretty much took him apart tonight and came to the conclusion he has never questioned a young witness in open court. No judge would allow a defense lawyer to psychologically abuse a child in court, and nothing would turn a jury against a defendant quicker than phsychologically abusing a child in court.
Overlooking that incredible mistake on his part, the other huge mistake is pretending a defense lawyers diligence is dictated by the possible sentence (i.e., his point was with such a harsh sentence for child molesters, defense lawyers would become meaner). That guy is a tool, and an idiot on so many levels.
I guess you fail to understand what I typed, s'ok.
-
I guess you fail to understand what I typed, s'ok.
I understand perfectly what you wrote. You wrote that some lawyers take the high road and some take the low- i.e., you have good people and bad people, good lawyers and bad lawyers.
What I wrote is, it is ridiculous to think there is lawyer so bad that he doesn't realize a judge would throw him in jail if he tried to badger a young rape victim. I understand what you wrote, and I think you're wrong. Presenting a lawyer that would ruin a child on a witness stand is absurd - a red herring at best. There are many logical arguments for voting against mandatory sentencing. Malicious lawyers isn't one of them.
S'ok?