Thursday, June 26, 2008

Rep James Fagan (D-MA) hates child rape victims

It's nice to know whose side some Democrats are on when it comes to child rape victims.

I'm no expert on Jessica's Law or any other kind of court procedures when it comes to rape cases but is it absolutely mandatory that a victim of rape has to take the stand and testify against the accused?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

It's in Bill of Rights, chief:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Yes, the right "... to be confronted with the witnesses against him ..." is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Yes, children (if determined mature enough) are routinely dragged into the courtroom and basically raped again and again and again by the counsel for the defence in order to defeat pre-determined mandatory sentences. That's what Fagan is saying.

Fagan said "That's because when you're in court, and you're defending somebody's liberty, and you're facing a mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions, you have to do every single thing you can do on behalf of your client. That is your obligation as a trial lawyer."

He is correct, albeit overzealous in his statement about ripping apart little children -and that's what has conservatives blinded at the moment, unfortunately.

Fagan is not against putting the scum in prison, he is against mandatory sentencing that causes defence attorneys to re-victimize the victims and strips judges of the power to decide a fitting punishment.

Consider that a child might not testify at all if he or she knows 'Uncle Ted' is facing a pre-determined jail sentence if they talk. If the child does testify, it is the sworn duty of the defence attorney to uphold the rights of his client. The attorney often fights viscously for a 'not guilty'. It's all or nothing, the judge decides nothing.

Mandatory sentencing completely undermines the power of the judiciary. Let the judges decide a fitting punishment and let the judges be elected by the people they serve. That's justice.

Suggested reading about the dangers of relying on FoxNews as a primary source of information (unrelated to this case):

Criticise and then ask about the law? Have another cup of joe and reconsider what Mr. Fagan is really saying. Good laws are not forged easily.