jamesrage

Pedo-sympathizer while trying to fight Jessica's law reveals what scum lawyers are.

Debate Over Jessica’s Law Reveals Lack of Morality

__________________

shuamort

Your obligation as a trial lawyer is not to destroy the opposing side, it's to make sure that your client has a fair trial. This guy is a complete ass.

jamesrage

It seems that the logic of that rat for fighting Jessica's law is since lawyers are going to be scum then we should allow pedophile sympathizing judges to give child rapist a slap on the wrist.

P/N

Look, protecting children from predators is my hot button topic (THE hot button topic). I believe that mandatory minimums for child predators and rapists is an absolute must. But looking at this from a "big picture" viewpoint, this guy is right in the point he is trying to make.

My ex-step daughter who is about to turn 18 was molested by a friend of the family a few years ago. Without going into too much detail, it's been hard for her to deal with ever since. She's been to counseling, talked about it and has made a great deal of progress over time, but it will always stick with her. Through that entire legal process of getting that guy thrown in jail (and we did), the one thing that pissed me off more than anything was how that lawyer treated me, my ex-wife and my ex-step daughter during deposition. It took every ounce of control in my being to not jump across the table and rip that mother ****er's throat out. What Fagan said is exactly what is going to happen. Lawyers, for the most part, are scum - especially defense lawyers. They will put the children through hell and do and say anything they can get away with to fight for their client. Fortunately in my case, there was too much evidence for the molester to take it to trial and he pleaded out the case. My ex-step daughter took solace in the fact that he went to prison, but her opinion of lawyers isn't very good, obviously.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending this asshole Fagan, but I believe he was trying to make a point and some people took it the wrong way, which is completely understandable. Despite what I experienced along with my loved ones, I still believe in mandatory minimums for child predators and rapists. Removing these sick ****s from society to where they can't do anything to another child is the key to all of this. If mandatory minimums aren't put into place, these worthless pieces of **** will continue to get light sentences and will molest or rape more children. Mandatory minimums protect children, period.

__________________
Have you ever wondered if your mom kissed you goodnight after giving your dad a blow job? You are now.

TacticalEvilDan

Your obligation as a defense attorney is to do everything possible within the law to defend your client. That does sometimes include destroying the opposing side. It makes defense attorneys unpopular people, but that's what they're supposed to do.

Fair, hell. The prosecution has the weight and resources of the government on their side.


That said, nobody but the dumbest defense lawyer is going to actually do tear apart a child on cross, and the really smart ones aren't going to cross at all unless they believe there is an inconsistency in the child's story that needs to be explored in front of the jury.

Jury sympathy is typically going to weigh heavily in favor of a young victim, and anybody who sets teeth into them will earn the jury's ire and distaste. This, in turn, will factor into their decision regarding guilt.


This leads me to believe that this guy is doing nothing more than grandstanding, which is what politicians do best.

Does he truly believe that mandatory sentances in general are a bad thing? I don't know. All I know is that I think they're generally a bad thing.

People often complain about judges who "legislate" from the bench. As it is the judge's role to preside over the punishment handed down to a guilty convict, I'd prefer not to see the legislators "ruling" from the floor.

__________________
DURKA DURKA JIHAD

"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."
-- Abraham Lincoln

Gipper

Actually, he's absolutely right. However, anyone with a lick of sense will tell you that the fastest way to lose your case in a court of your peers is for the lawyer to abandon compassion for the "truth". Even if there was some testimonial inconsistency, a good prosecutor would object for badgering to the point of mental anguish.

__________________
A government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. - Barry Goldwater

mikhail

I kinda disagree with most post on here i think you have to find a way to cure these people you have to make them come forward and admit their problem.I think you highten the danger if you make them run away.

__________________
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

rathi

Jessica's law is a bad proposal, but this guy's arguments against it are terrible. As a defense attorney, you are required to act in your clients interest. That does not mean you can justify completely immoral acts because you think they might help your case. Shredding someone on the cross examination is NOT required to defend the client. Its a choice by the defense attorney and if they go overboard, they damn well deserve flak for it.

__________________
He'd be right at home on some ancient battlefield, swinging an axe into somebody's face.

P/N

"These people" as in child molesters? A very high percentage of them can't be cured, which is the problem. Now there is a small percentage that doesn't re-commit the crimes, but there is a higher percentage that does but doesn't get caught.

Having lived through someone very close to me being molested and having gone through this myself, I feel I have a pretty good grasp on the situation and can speak from an educated viewpoint. This friend of he family that molested my ex-step daughter, this wasn't his first time. He had served time before (which I didn't know about). He served his time, went to counseling and guess what - he did it again, only with someone very close to me. I believe in giving everyone a second chance, so I'm not for locking them up and throwing away the key on their first offense (rape excluded - lock those ****ers up). But if they re-commit, they don't get a third chance, that's it. What I want put to an end is these probation sentences or 90 day sentences, these are absurd. Personally, I'd like to see a minimum 5-year sentence for anyone convicted of molestation with counseling in and after prison. If they re-commit after getting out - life, period. For molesters, they simply get 25 years minimum and if they re-commit after prison, life.

Now, I know there are two sides to every issue and I can see the issue that Fagan is bringing up, and he's right. But at the same time, I think putting these people where they belong (which IS NOT out on the streets with probation or 90 day sentences) is what's best for doing what Jessica's Law is trying to do - protect the children. For me, it's more about protecting our kids than it is punishing someone because they are sick ****ing bastards. I saw what my ex-step daughter went through and I'd be sick at my stomach for the rest of my life if this guy were to get out of prison and do this to someone else's child. He shouldn't be allowed to have the power to alter/ruin another child's life after having done it to two different children already.

Diogenes

You may as well try to counsel a cobra. You "heighten the danger" by allowing these monsters to live among us, and the only proper way to deal with them is to permanently remove them from society.