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

[CBU Jeff]

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

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by CBU Jeff

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.

[KappaKittyCat]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by srmom

How is it "draconian" to be sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence AFTER being convicted of a heinous crime?

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.

Originally Posted by srmom

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.

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.

Originally Posted by KappaKittyCat

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.

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

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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 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.