MA State Rep Vows to "Rip Apart" 6-Year-Old Rape Victims on Witness Stand
 

From Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6...856/541/531368

DISGUSTING!! This guy is unbelievable. I wonder how he sleeps at night if he truly thinks this is the proper way to defend his scum bag clients.:mad:

What do you think?

It's sad. I realize that his job to defend rapist's and such, but when does ethics come into play???

Even an accused child rapist deserves an adequate defense. If the state really doesn't want the witness to suffer, then the state can plea bargain.

There are cases where the entire rape scenario was something the child just made up by the child.

If the defense attorney, however, subjects the child to too much abuse, that sort of strategy is very likely to backfire with the jury.

Any sort of law limiting the right of cross examination will likely be held unconstitutional.

I think you didn't pay attention to the actual speech.

It appears his point was that mandatory sentences are silly because they warp the process of trying the accused. He noted that he would have to change his tactics to the ones noted because that would be the only way to fight against a "Draconian" mandatory sentence.

Additionally, the specter of mandatory sentences plays havoc with jury deliberations. Seriously, it's not "cut and dry" - this is a complex psychological issue.

This is without going into the fact that his "scum bag clients" are actually innocent until proven guilty, and have a Constitutional right to a vigorous defense - no matter what.

The kids don't have to take the stand. The attorney's ethical duty is to his clients, first and foremost. Come on - don't take this out of context and think the guy just hates rape victims. He was making a point.

Not that I'm defending this guy...
 

But the statement was made in the context of a debate over whether to impose mandatory minimum sentences for child rape in Massachusetts. Nearly all of the Massachusetts Attorneys General are opposed to this change because it would prohibit plea bargaining and all these child rape cases would go to trial. The representative was talking about what would happen to these child victims if a vicious defense attorney cross-examined them. He was using hyperbole to make a point. I think he could have gone about it better. But I do agree that if reporting a child's rape automatically entail a trial in which the child victim would have to testify, there'd be a lot fewer child rapes reported.

I can state for a fact, having just been on a jury deciding a child abuse case, that a mandatory sentence would have made it even harder for us to decide.

I think he just went WAY over the top in his impassioned speech. He could have gotten his viewpoint that mandatory sentencing was the wrong tact to take legislatively without saying that he would "rip apart" child rape victims.

And, while there are cases where there are many more that are not.

People are already afraid of going to the police and pressing charges because of what might happen, that they won't be believed, or that they will be ripped to shreds by defense attorneys, being victimized by, not only the rapist, but by the legal system as well.

Do you think this type of diatribe helps reassure victims that they will be treated fairly by the system?

Also, IMO, child molestation is a sickness. There have been too many cases of repeat offenses, often escalating in violence. Many molestors themselves have testified to a uncontrollable compulsion. With courts being too lenient in some cases, mandatory sentences may be the only way to get some jurists to take seriously the crime.

Case in point:

I can keep googling and will find case after case of this.

How is it "draconian" to be sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence AFTER being convicted of a heinous crime? And, I personally find raping a child under the age of 12 pretty darn heinous.

What happens if the person didn't do it? What happens if the child made it up? You seem to be saying that we should start with the premise that the person is guilty, work from there, and that anyone accused of the crime should be railroaded through the system.

I understand that his wording was unfortunate, and he should have thought of a calmer way to say it. I get his point, though.

No, I don't think that someone who is accused of a crime should be railroaded through the system. All should be presumed innocent until proven guilty and we are all entitled to an attorney But, I also don't think that an attorney should have this attitude:

But, I do think that if a person is convicted of the heinous crime of child rape (and I'm not talking statutory rape, I mean forcible rape), they should go to jail, not plea out for probation.

Just one excerpt from an article (of which there are innumerable):

It's not necessarily. But the point being made was not that long sentences are per se draconian; rather the claim was that it is draconian if the judge has no flexibility at all to impose a shorter sentence even where he or she finds that to be appropriate in a particular case.

A plea bargain might not result in probation; I doubt it would except in excpetional cases. But a plea could very well result in a shorter active sentence.

I know that lots of people have a very negative view of plea bargains. However, unless society is willing to put in the resources that would be necessary to try every case -- court facilities and staff, more judges, more assistant district attorneys, funding for more court appointed defense lawyers, more jail facilities for those who are sentenced to active time or longer terms of imprisonment, more corrections officers, etc. -- they aren't going away.

I think you might mean the Massachusetts district attorneys -- Massachusetts only has one Attorney General -- but very good for pluralizing attorneys general correctly. :D

I completely agree with this and I totally understood what Fagan was saying.

I also believe the way in which he said it was awkward (first person when third person would have been more appropriate) but I still agree with the overall point that mandatory sentencing will have an adverse affect on alleged victims.

Sometimes WAY too short as in the above mentioned case in Mass. where the guy got out after 4 years and then raped a 6 year old in a library bathroom.

That's very true, and sad.

I'm not sure how that argues for mandatory minimum sentences, though. Just based on the quote you offered earlier:
no sentence will be long enough except for a life sentence, where they are kept away from children altogether.

Say the guy you're talking about had been held for 20 rather than 4 years. While the specific 6-year-old might have been spared this horrible thing, you can't assume that the longer sentence would keep the offender from raping some other child when he finally got out.

I agree completely that the rape of or sexual assault on a child is utterly reprehensible. But I think there is some validity to the argument that mandatory minimum sentences won't address the problem -- that they are a band aid solution for a problem requiring surgery.

We can find case after case, sure - but we still have no idea how this affects the overall point (that sometimes, the arrests are wrongful and invented by the child or put into the child's head by an elder) . . . anecdotes are great, because they get us all riled up over the extreme cases, but they also occlude our minds when we try to figure out just how often the accused is indeed wrongly accused.

Even beyond that, it's true that judges make mistakes - that's why you can vote judges out of office very few years, in most jurisdictions. However, mandatory sentences are a pretty bad idea on the whole, for a variety of reasons:

-First, they tie prosecutors' hands, because mandatory sentences cause problems with plea bargains or scenarios that are "special cases." While we always hear negative things about plea deals, it's selection bias - more options is generally better than fewer when it comes to this sort of thing. No one is going to bargain into a mandatory sentence, and if there's an iffy case (remember the burden in criminal court), the prosecutor would be completely remiss to not get something out of it.

-Second, it's pretty clear after a couple decades of research that juries have difficulty with crimes that have mandatory sentences. You may very well see conviction rates go down as a result, or lesser included charges become more successful. The cure might actually be worse than the current sickness.

-Third, with literally nothing to lose because of a mandatory sentence, defense attorneys are forced to "go for broke" whereas before, they might hedge by seeking a guilty verdict with a reduced sentence. It changes the risk/reward dynamic, and that's exactly what Mr. Fagan was describing in his diatribe.

I think Mr. Fagan's description was pretty on-point, to be honest, but I'm surely coming from a completely different place than someone with children or etc.

Interestingly enough, I think one of the sponsors of this bill also was pushing one requiring sex offenders to vote absentee because of the library incident mentioned up thread. His argument was that if a sex offender went to a library to vote there might be a kid around.

Are you suggesting castration?

Now, that would be a draconian punishment;) totally kidding, so don't jump on me!

Am I mistaken? I thought that once you were convicted of a felony, you lost the right to vote, so this would be moot.

Just checked, it's a state by state thing. In Illinois, you are disenfranchised until after your incarceration is over, then you regain the right to vote in the state.

Interesting what can be learned by googling (for an old lady, who used to have to do research in the library with a card catalog and the dewey decimal system, it is downright amazing:) Sorry for the diversion, but it is CRAZY what these computers will do!!!;))

He's a defense attorney. This doesn't necessarily conflict with the law or professional ethics, just personal ethics. If he goes too far, the prosecution can "object."

His personal opinion and morals are distinct from his job.

Interesting discussion. I now see the point Rep. Fagan was trying to make. Thank you to those of you who helped clarify it.

I'm curious, though, why most of the men posting in this thread seem so determined to hammer home this idea of the "invented" victim.

Yes, child abuse cases, as well as rape cases involving adults, are often hard to prove. Child rape cases, however, are far more clear and less likely to be invented.



But he would have had 16 years of fewer opportunities and victims.

I don't mean this in a dick way, but you missed his point entirely.

The point is more likely that if recidivism is such a problem, then locking them up for a mandatory 20 year sentence doesn't SOLVE that problem - in effect, a mandatory sentence is a cop out, because they'll still afterward. Regardless of whether you side with theories of prisons as rehabilitative devices or punitive devices, this mandatory sentence serves neither purpose effectively if the guy relapses afterward.

Viewed in that light, it becomes a quandary - do you lock everyone up for an extended and mandatory period of time, even though some won't perform the act again, and the ones who do won't be fixed (effectively solving nothing but literally "buying time")? Or do you leave it to the judicial system's authority, allowing a few egregious mistakes as noted in this thread?

The answer isn't mandatory sentencing, it's figuring out a better way to diagnose and classify defenders and prevent them from relapsing - and that way is NOT "living >2,000 feet from a church or school"

It's probably mostly men because for whatever reason, men are more likely to be defense attorneys. Men are also more likely to be accused of a sex crime.

Really? What are you basing that on? Read this article (scroll down to the "scandal" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan,_Minnesota

This one is interesting too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clevela..._abuse_scandal

Children are HIGHLY suggestible.

Yeah, it's state by state and also depends on the offense. Jessica's Law in some states is messing this up pretty badly with the sex offenders. In Massachusetts I believe you can vote as soon as you've exited prison - so including time you're on probation and parole.

I don't mean this in a bitchy way, but I think you missed my point entirely.

I wasn't suggesting that mandatory sentences solve the problem. I'm actually not in favor or mandatory sentences at all.

Way to avoid the main point of my post though. My comment to MC was just an afterthought.


18 years of study plus some common sense.

The Jordan article actually does not deal with rape at all (which is the topic of this thread and the topic of my post.) Rape and molestation, within this context, are not one and the same.

All I said was simply that child rape is easier to prove than molestation and other types of abuse. Why? Due to the difference between rape and other types of abuse some very obvious physical evidence makes it easier to prove. Do I really have to spell it out in graphic detail?

Yes, children are highly suggestible. I am NOT in any way suggesting that false accusations do not occur.


** Points that will inevitibly be ignored or twisted are in bold.

You are being an extreme bitch. What field do you study this in? I worked in the county where the Jordan issues occurred (obviously much later because in 1984 I was kind of busy learning how to crawl) and people were saying "My daddy raped me!" right along with "Random dude down the street who dresses in black touches my naughty bits. This all turned out to be FALSE. There's a book called Nightmares and Secrets by Tom Dubbe that's on the same issue if you'd like to read more about it, but one would think that somewhere in your 18 years of study plus common sense you would have already heard about this. You might also want to look further into the Cleveland scandal.

OK - then what was your point?

Ditto, because not meaning to be dense about it, but I read your comment the same way KSig RC did, and I'm not really seeing any other way to read it.

I do, however, see your point about the physical injuries that often would be associated with the rape of a child making such cases a little more clear cut than sexual assault or molestation cases.

Wow, where'd that come from? Yikes:confused:

This is an interesting discussion and can be done without any namecalling.

Besides, I think she was referencing Ksig's assertion - not to be a d**k about this, but...

She wasn't directing anything at Geeky Penguin (funny name:p).

Back to the discussion.

I don't know if mandatory sentencing is right or wrong. What I do feel is that getting and keeping known molestors off the streets, so that they cannot hurt another child, even if it is only for X number of years, will affect the kids who could have been the victims during that period.

I bet if you asked the mom of the 6 year old who was raped in the library if she wished the rapist had been in prison that day, she'd say an extremely emotional, "YES".

I wish there was a switch that could be flipped in the mind of a pedophile to turn the urges off (I bet they, in their hearts, wish there was a switch too), but until they figure it out, taking them out of the community is the only way to keep potential victims safe.

I'll be the completely cynical b*tch here and note that if the mother of that 6-year-old had been paying attention to and keeping track of her very young child in a large public library rather than being completely absorbed on the library's free computers, perhaps her child would not have been so accessible and vulnerable to that monster. Just saying.

Not sure what you're implying here...but, at least from my point of view, the discussion seemed to be turning towards a "guilty until proven innocent" angle, which I think is an extremely dangerous way to proceed, no matter what the accusation. We do live in a society where the accused is innocent until proven guilty, which people seem to forget when heinous crimes are involved.

Also, it seemed from your previous posts that you were for mandatory sentences. If not that, then what would be your solution to the issue? Tougher probation guidelines? More post-release programs?

Also, can you cite any literature/etc. on why child rape cases would be easier to prove than other rapes? I mean, maybe the statement makes sense on its own for someone more familiar with studying such things, but I'd never heard that before.

I understand what you're saying, but I think that mindset is what drives prosecutors, sometimes, to put anyone in jail, to get some closure. I don't have the exact numbers, and I know that's not how it always turns out, but it happens.

Hey, I totally get what your saying!! I don't think my kids went into a potty alone until they finally said, "MOM, I cannot go in the ladies room!!!" At that point, I walked them to the men's room and then waited outside the door, periodically cracking it and yelling, "Hey, what's taking you so long?" I'm sure that alarmed the men standing at the urinals!

But, still, the guy is a pedophile and if it hadn't been that boy, it would be someone else.

Sorry, but our court system isn't about emotion...which is the point here. You CANNOT just say that everyone accused in a sex crime case is guilty until proven innocent - this idea is prevalent in our society nowadays and is the reason why many young men every year are accused of rape by women who simply had the "next day regrets". Are you aware that this sort of idea can ruin someone's life forever?

I bet you would change your tune here if it was YOUR son or daughter being accused of rape or child molestation. In that case, I'm sure you would completely agree that he or she is innocent until proven guilty. Why not these other people?


This is where the big decision comes in - what is more important? Keeping an innocent man out of jail or letting a guilty man go free? I personally think that keeping an innocent man out of jail is what is most important. If a man is really guilty, he will commit a crime again...and he won't get away with it a second time. But in my opinion, to ruin an innocent person's life is a heinous crime in itself.

fantastic, I never said that someone who is falsely accused should be put in jail. If you read my posts, I clearly say that only people who have been CONVICTED (meaning, been tried by a jury of their peers, and based on the evidence, convicted) should be put in jail.

I feel they should be put in jail for a long time for a heinous crime, and perhaps, mandatory sentencing is the only way for that to be assured.

Now, let me get what you're saying. "If a man is really guilty, he will commit a crime again and he won't get away with it a second time" - so what? a criminal should get a free pass for the first crime? Because he will get caught the second time? WHAT???

Oh, that first victim doesn't matter - free pass, the SECOND victim will get the guy caught!

I must be misunderstanding you because you cannot possibly mean what I think you mean!

What I'm saying, to clarify...is that it is better for a guilty man to walk free, when he may commit a crime again, than it is to lock up an innocent man. I'm sure you knew this. Don't play dumb.

Maybe it was your wording, but I had difficulty with understanding your point. Not playing dumb, I don't do that..

I agree that there is nothing more important than finding the TRUTH in a matter, and there in no greater travesty than an innocent man being accused, and if by chance, the innocent man is found guilty, then that is just HORRIBLE.

But, that, to me, is a separate point from having mandatory sentencing for guilty pedophiles.

Who got sexually excited when they read the title of this thread? Raise your hands. Show me. Show me.