Wednesday, June 25, 2008

There are times when duelling should be allowed.

Last month, during floor debate in the Massachusetts on a bill to set mandatory minimum sentences for various offences against children, Massachusetts State Representative James Fagan had what some might call an interesting take on the subject.

Representative Fagan is not only a member of the Democratic Party, but he is also a defence lawyer by trade. As such, it would seem that he apparently gets to defend those who prey upon children. So, one would tend to believe that Mr. Fagan would tend to not relish the passage of such a law.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Fagan is a critter. He has earned this appellation, not merely because he is a politician, nor because he is a Democrat. Not even the fact that he is a defence attorney merits this title.

No, what earned that sumbitch the title of critter were his remarks made during debate on this bill.

Allow me to quote from the linked video:

"I'm gonna 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.”

Lest anyone be in doubt, allow me to assure you that the people that Fagan is talking about are -- and he specifically says this -- six year old victims of abuse.

Not the molesters. Not the abusers. He means the victims. He means the children.

I understand the Constitutional right to a fair trial, and I understand the Constitutional right to legal representation -- however I fail to see a Constitutional mandate for the deliberate, intentional, knowing and vicious destruction of a victim.

If a defence attorney cannot adequately defend an accused party without -- and I quote:
"Making sure the rest of [the victim's] life is ruined" unquote -- then I put it before you that that defence attorney is incompetent.

Defending is one thing. "I'm gonna make sure that the rest of their life is ruined" is something completely different.

"Making sure" that an innocent life "is ruined" is not justice. "Making sure" that a victim throws up years later isn't justice. It is the action of a critter.

Contact information for Congresscritter James Fagan.


Do note, for further amusement, that this critter apparently chairs the Massachusetts House Committee on Ethics.

How about it, Massachusetts? Intentionally and knowingly ripping apart the six-year-old victim of molestation sound ethical to you?

Intentionally and knowingly ruining the rest of that six-year-old victim's life sound ethical to you?

Intentionally and knowingly making sure that that six-year-old victim never has a relationship with anybody sound ethical to you?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Oh, and wee Jimmy Fagan? Horsewhipping around the courthouse square is too good for you.

LawDog

52 comments:

Drew said...

Defense lawyers already tend to destroy victims whenever possible, but to PLEDGE it in cases where the victim is a child is obscene.
Going out of the way to destroy a child is sickening, horrifying, and unnecessary. The molestation already scars the child, and the trial makes it worse, and this CREATURE is vowing to make that even worse.

Peter said...

Thanks for the rant, Dawg. Richly justified. I've linked to yours (you do it so much better than I do!), and added a few comments of my own.

http://tinyurl.com/57qc64

Orion said...

I've said it for years: Shakespeare was right. "First thing, let's kill all the lawyers."

Do you suppose we could at least pass a hunting season on defense attorneys? You know, thin out the herd a bit and to help cull out the obviously sick ones - like this sterling specimine?

If I ever run for office, I'm going on a platform of removing as many existing laws as possible and rewriting the remaining - necessary laws so that they can be understood by laymen and reducing the need for lawyers.

Lawyers...Politicians...Democrats. We have a lovely intersection here.

Orion

Legman688 said...

That is a... induhvidual (he is neither a man nor a person) who needs to be summarily killed as soon as possible. He is as bad as the... induviduals he defends.

Lin said...

Fagan's charming comments sound like the confessions of a twisted, depraved individual.

Perhaps he is feeling powerful and joyous over the new Supremie ruling that destroying a child's life in ways more cruel and unusual and ever-haunting than taking its life does not warrant truly permanent removal from society. Deterrent stats or not, some monsters just need recycling and composting ASAP.

phlegmfatale said...

People like Mr. Fagan are why God invented duct tape, Crisco and flamethrowers. Clothing optional.

Cybrludite said...

"Representative Fagan? Have a seat over there. My name is Chris Hansen with Dateline NBC..."

You can tell this is happening in a disarmed state like Massachusetts. I'd like to see what would have happened had he spouted such filth in Texas, where ordinary citizens are allowed to go armed in the State Capitol itself...

Joseph said...

I don't think a Texan would think he could get away with saying such things.

Everett said...

I live on Block Island RI, and I absolutely HATE living in close proximity to the Massholes like Teddy K and the likes of this piece of vermin. I dearly would like to try sighting in my new Sig 1911 .45 on his loathsome body!! BTW I totally agree with Orion's assessment!

lobo said...

I wonder what Bob Mundon is up to these days... Wonder if he needs any work...

:)

==========

Evil only prospers for a season. Sometimes it's a short season, other times, it's longer.

Simeron Steelhammer said...

To quote my comment on Bayou REnaissance Man's blog about this..


"I love the "justification" of "he would just be doing his job as a defense attorney." part.

I keep hearing German and "I wuz jest followink oooooorrrrders."

Bullshit detector broke on this one by becoming a propeller...*8("

Evil is defined by the acts one do just like Good is. To basically attack and bring more harm to a child already harmed so greatly in defense of the accused is still evil plain and simple.

There is plenty of "defense" that could be had without such things.

End of Line.

DW said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DW said...

Dawg,
I've already invited this scum down south to get his self some. I have grand babies that fall into that age bracket, bet'ca that wouldn't get far.

Sarah said...

As a law student, I find this man to be an absolutely abhorrent human being. Lawyers in the criminal justice system should remain cognizant of the fact that the victim has suffered a traumatic event, and the defendant is not guilty until judged so in a court of law. I know several defense attorneys who are honorable men and women and who see their client as not only the accused, but also the taxpayers of their locality. They are there to ensure that everyone receives their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
I disagree with LawDog about whipping this vermin. Whipping is too good for him, I'm envisioning something with rusty nails, and dangling appendages.
Believe I'll go take a bath and scrub myself. yeeech.

Anonymous said...

If this vermin is reelected it will prove beyond all doubt that Massachusetts has sunk below recovery.

Jay G said...

I'm from MA, 'dawg.

Anything I could say about this matter would MOST CERTAINLY get me investigated by numerous alphabet agencies.

And I'll lay 3:1 odds this shitheel is re-elected by a wide margin.

I hate this state.

John Stephens said...

There needs to be some sort of procedure for tossing States out of the Union. The entire state of Massachusetts is a stain on humanity, and I'm tired of being associated with them.

Mulligan said...

Appalling. We not only have a system that limits our personal ability to protect our children from abusers, but condones the existence of people who value something above protecting our young.

Sad that we live in a world where people actually debate punishments for child abusers. Instead of arguing which punishment to choose just make a list and do them all. I’m stunned our society allows repeat offenders. Obviously the current punishments are not enough of a deterrent.

I’m sure suspects have rights, but when did their rights include paying someone to destroy their accuser? Are not the victims protected from cruel and unusual punishment in courtrooms?

Chrus said...

All I can say is that Mr. Fagan is no better than those sub-human animals he represents. Simply unbelievable.

Sean said...

The Courthouse is rapidly becoming a place of destruction, moral decay, and the only place where lawlessness is condoned.

Where else can a grown man, educated by some of our highest places of learning, verbally assault an already-damaged six-year-old victim of rape, until their entire life is ruined beyond hope of therapeutic intervention? This man is vowing to re-rape the child, and I would hold him in lower regard than the defendant, as this lawyer is protected by the vestments of the court, and shall repeat his crime over and over, without exposure to any risk of sitting in the defendant's chair.

Where else is it decided in a nation's highest institution of justice that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment for the rape of children?

I cannot help but feel sympathy toward those who would murder a rapist of their children before he rests within the safe harbor of the government; life in prison is not always life in prison, as LawDog has pointed out in the case of Susan Atkins.

It seems to me that this is one area where the religious and the atheistic can reach consensus. On the one hand, forwarding such a demon on to meet his maker, be judged sorely lacking merit, and receiving his eternal torture at the hands of the Devil sounds like not-quite-enough-justice-but-better-than-we-can-achieve. If one believes that there is nothing beyond this present existence, the sooner we remove such trash from our shared landscape, the better.

Black Ice said...

"It seems to me that this is one area where the religious and the atheistic can reach consensus."

I'm an atheist, and I fully agree.

By the way, I'm pimping this post everywhere. Fagan can say what he wants, but we have the right to make sure he's taken to task for it.

Anonymous said...

How do these people get loose on humanity?
We've just had a Headstart teacher accused of child abuse in the classroom, complete with a statement from the doctor who treated some of the children. Despite this, and complaints to the school for years from parents who suspected said person was doing exactly what the children said she was, despite that apparently two foster children were taken from her at 2 am one morning, despite a lot of things, she was allowed to continue to 'teach.'
Not saying innocent or guilty, but the grand jury no-billed the whole incident because they said a 5-year old's testimony wasn't sufficient proof.
So far as I know, she isn't back in the classroom, but she makes a habit of going into the school and standing outside the classroom where the children who accused her are, and staring at them. The school authorities do not stop her.
Sound like intimidation? Sound like an innocent person to you?
Maybe she and Fagan can get together. That would make quite a pair.

BCFD36 said...

Lawdog, I expected better. Before passing judgement on this guy, you HAVE to know what he said for the preceding 5 minutes and the subsequent 5 minutes. He MAY have preceded the statements with "If I were an unethical trial attorney, I would do this..." followed by his speech. He MAY have followed it with, "I believe this is bad law because it gives the judge no leeway in sentencing and does not protect the victim for such attorneys". The problem is we don't know the context, and context is everything.

BCFD36

Robert said...

Lawdog,

Legal dueling wouldn't help in this case. Duels only occur by mutual consent, so both parties have to have honor for a duel to occur. The legislator in question clearly has no honor or even morals. He merely has ethics, a clearly worthless commodity.

What you need is some kind of narrow exception to lynching laws that allows for the occasional tarring and feathering.

Or perhaps a jury system that recognizes "he needed it" as a defense for whatever indignities you choose to inflict upon this "gentleman."

1894C said...

What Jay G. said.

and to BCFD36,

This is ALL OVER the news and radio programs here in MA. This guy got on the air and stood behind his statements. What LD said was what Fagan said, and you know what he will likely get re-elected.

Anonymous said...

If I saw a performance like that in court, I would vote Guilty on all charges.

How many victims of this shyster have sued him afterwards? His statement in a public forum should be acceptable in court.

If he is a member of the National Association of Trial Lawyer, I think they should be sued as well. I'll vote for the plaintiff!

Geoff
Who has a low opinion of shyster scum.

Anonymous said...

Are we sure Jimmy Fagan's name is spelled correctly? He sounds suspiciously like the infamous Fagin, though I wonder if even Dickens' Fagin would stoop so low.
Being fairly familiar with the rules of duelling through my ancestors, who appear to have offed a number of people in any number of ways, both legal and illegal (but what matter the method if the end result was accomplished?), I would say that form of execution is way too good for Fagan.
Back to Apache torture methods, if not Arab ones....
LawMom

Anonymous said...

Having lived in the Middle East extensively I can heartily agree with LawMom. The Arabs have good methods of extracting information from their captives.

However, the Texan in me wants to utter those famous words "Get a rope."

Dr. Joe

D.W. Drang said...

lin said: Perhaps he is feeling powerful and joyous over the new Supremie ruling that destroying a child's life in ways more cruel and unusual and ever-haunting than taking its life does not warrant truly permanent removal from society.
My first thought was almost word-for-word.
Deterrent stats or not, some monsters just need recycling and composting ASAP.
And, my first thought on reading that Supreme ruling, and the second on reading this crud's statements.
Bottom line, for me, is that some featherless bipeds are simply oxygen thieves, blots on creation, and the universe would be better off for the expense of a .22 hollow point to the base of the skull..

Anonymous said...

Well Dr. Joe, Texan though I am, we have to remember that one of my ancestors sent a poisoned dress to Queen Elizabeth I. What can I say?
LawMom

Mikael said...

What I envision for this critter involves a chair, restraints, a thick metal pipe, some rats, and a fire.

Shamelessly stolen from the chinese.

Anonymous said...

There's not much that can render me speechless, but that did it. I am generally a very kind woman not prone to get mad or upset. But I could go totally PMS crazy on this...thing. I could hurt him and hurt him bad. Scum is too complimentary a term for him.

Ky Person

Anonymous said...

+1 Robert,

+1 Lawmom,

this guy has no Honor to defend.

I have a 350 acre plot and several anthills,
think He'd show up for a promise of barbeque? Or just campaign conributions?

hmmm.

just thinkin'

anon

Anonymous said...

Too bad we can't wave a magic wand and turn Fagan into a little kid, up before a Fagan-like attorney. That's the only justice.

Jared Nedzel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Let's start with his debarment and proceed diligently with castration, being drawn, quartered, hanged and disembowelled, followed by burning whatever remains and feeding the leftovers to wild pigs, then burying the pigs alive.

Absolutely un-fricking-believable. From a sworn "officer of the court?"
How can that man look himself in the mirror in the morning? Or does he see no reflection?
Doug in Colorado

Rorschach said...

I don't know what judges are like up in HIS neck of the woods but down here in Houston, the minute the guy started tearing into the witness the judge would be all over him like white on rice. He would be shut down so fast it would make his head spin.

It is a stupid move anyway if the goal is to get your client off. I mean is it really a good idea to make the jury hate you (and by extension, your client) any more than they already do for you defending the piece of human excrement anyway?

Rorschach said...

One further thing. I have a 14 year old and a 7 year old daughter. Were either of them the subject of such cross examination, I would personally murder the SOB on the courthouse steps in front of the cameras and the cops then I would slowly put the gun down and raise my hands. I would gladly take my chances with a jury to prevent the same kind of harm befalling some other parent's child. Even if I were convicted, I doubt that my fellow inmates would begrudge my actions. Regular criminals don't have much truck with child abusers either. Someone must speak for the innocent.

Debi said...

Every time I've visited your blog, I've agreed with what you're saying. Keep it up! I'll be putting a link in my blog to yours...if that's ok!
www.atexgal.blogspot.com. I'm with the State Dept in Tegucigalpa, Honduras for the next 2 years. Should be interesting and I'll turn to your blog to be informed!

D.W. Drang said...

And another thing...
The problem with duelling in the case of Mr. Fagan is that, as is well known, the Duelling Field is also referred to as "The Field of Honor"; ergo, Mr. Fagan would be utterly lost there.

ArkieRN said...

The heck with the deterrent rates. Did they even look at the recidivism rates? These slugs aren't being rehabilitated. They go right back out there and rape or molest again.

When my son was born 20 years ago, I decided that if anyone EVER hurt him that way I'd kill said critter and happily repay my debt to society. I have a big loving family and my boy would be well taken care of.

Now that he has a newborn daughter I'm of the same opinion regarding her.

God has already gifted me with more years than I thought to have. I count any time since the remission as extra and would give up my life or spend the rest of it in jail without remorse.

And I kinda think God would give me a pass on that 6th commandant when I showed up before Him.

BCFD36 said...

I wrote briefly about the context of the speech he was making earlier. I have no idea of the context, but someone else said that he is standing behind those statements, implying that he really means that he would do that to a witness.

If that is the case, I wish him a slow painful death.

BCFD36.

Anonymous said...

arkiern: that's why I like living in a rural area of Texas; there are cops around here who would handle it the same way I suspect LD would.

"Well, it's odd that he chose to steal your shotgun to shoot himself in the back of the head five times, but he wasn't exactly a sensible sort to start with."

Stephen Renico said...

Lawdog,

I read in a trivia book once that dueling is legal in Uruguay as long as both participants are registered blood donors.

Haven't been able to verify that on google yet, but I thought it might interest you. ;-)

Kristopher said...

I think Lawdog had the right idea.

A public whipping.

A half dozen masked men surprise him on a public street, tie him to a lamp-post, post a sign with his wonderful quote on it, and give him 20 lashes.

I'll bet no literate person there calls the cops.

Brigid said...

In the course of my work I regularly have to testify as an "expert witness", so I've seen a fair number of prosecuting and defense attornies who are, shall we say, zealous in their service to their client. However Fagan's threatened behavior, against a child no less, is unconscionable.

Fagan's statement should remove him from elected public service, let alone polite company.

If anyone had any doubt that child witnesses need protection from some defense lawyers who depart zeal for fanaticism, his words should erase the doubt. Children, as victims of a horrific crime, need protection from jackals like him, who do a diservice to the profession and the trust of those who elected them.

The reticence on sane parties with regards to the legislation might be as an outcome of the Mass. Amirault debacle. Probation for any convicted child rapist is unacceptable, as a measure of protection against injustice, or ANY reason. Even a well meaning judge, certain of someone's innocense, could pull a Judge Zobel and throw out the case.

Anonymous said...

bcfd36-as the son of an investigative newspaper reporter, and one WITH ethics, the Dog knows better than to leap before he looks, verbal-wise, so to speak. He also knows that if he did, I would get him long before the bloggers did.
LawMom

dr mac said...

I live on the Cape so at least we have water between us and the rest of the state. Fagan is just a start- add "Together we can" by charging the tax payers for a cadillac, a drunk kller of a secretary, a traitor to the troops, and a measly mumbler, and ditto Jay G.

Glenn Bartley said...

No it should not be dueling that is aloowed to handle a guy like this, it should be walling up in a cellar nook that be allowed for the likes of him.

roy in nipomo said...

Hey folks, look on the bright side: he's put everyone on notice what kind of scum he is. Now, at least, we know what we're dealing with.

Think how much worse it would be if he hadn't shot off his mouth and just carried out the action a few time before anyone was wise enough to connect the dots that this would be his m.o....

ben said...

would it be bad if I hired him as an attorny then left him in a room with lawdogto gain a statement from him? And lawdog I would buy the whip.

mini-katkat said...

My only reactions to this story are:

1. Critter roast anyone?

and

2. The extreme desire to scrub up in a hot shower with a large chunk o' pumice.

The being that is Fagan makes me ill.

Having spoken/typed my peace, I believe I shall endeavor to take care of number 2 on my above list.