Mass. rep opposes mandatory min. sentence for child rape.(Jessica's law)

[Blue Diadem]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2008/06/27/todd.child.rape.rant.cnn

I don't know what to say. I believe this guy is a Dem too. In our system, of course the rapist has to be defended but what this guy says is IMO absolutely awful.

[bean fidhleir]

1. What's his argument? Is there a transcript somewhere? (I don't do videos)

The only possible argument I can think of is the general one about minimum sentences being minefields for unfairness (e.g. California's 3-strikes law that put a poor man into prison for the rest of his life for three petty thefts - the last one from the supermarket, iirc)

[stillcool]

2. there is only one article..

I could find and it's from the Boston Herald. I think his argument is that mandatory minimum sentences ensure that every case will go to trial and the defense attorney will by necessity go after the victim.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view.bg?articleid=1102761&srvc=rss

[TheWraith]

3. His argument was that if the law passes, then an attorney defending someone

will be obligated to do or say anything to try and get their client acquitted, including putting the victim on the stand and hammering them, since there would be no room for plea deals or lesser sentencing.

Another argument not presented here is that if they know that it means a long prison term anyway if they're caught--and 15 years might as well be a death sentence for child rapists--genuine child molesters would be more likely to kill their victim rather than let them go.

[JerseygirlCT]

8. And I think those are both arguments worthy of consideration

Minimum sentencing is often a bad idea. It imposes a one-size-fits-all solution to criminal problems which are unique.

[Blue Diadem]

4. He says what he would do as a defense attorney

to get his client acquited.

There isn't a transcript, the link on CNN takes you directly to the video.

Apparently he's against it because it would "force" him to do whatever is necessary to get his client off. There is scrolling on the screen of what he was saying when the video begins with his rant, and it's about a 6 yr old. He says he would rip the kid apart, make sure that kid never had a normal life, would make sure the child would throw up at 8, wouldn't be able to sleep at 12, would have nightmares at 19 and would never be able to have a normal relationship.

He is saying that he said all that because it would get that bad in a courtroom.

I think megan's law is 15 yr minimum sentence, although I'm not sure of the age of the child it applies to. I could see if he were cross examining an older child, a teen but to say that about a 6 yr old shocked the heck out of me and sounded like a pretty awful way to be against the law.

[Sydnie]

5. A second article

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view/2008_06_26_Pol_stands_by_his_‘strong_language__vs__Jessica_s_Law/

and the bottom of that article has a quote by Lundsford that backs up what Fagan (D) is saying.

"Lunsford said Fagan’s tirade on the House floor is even more shocking because it’s true.

“The truth is a defense attorney will tear these children apart. That’s his job, but we have more of an obligation to people than to defense attorneys,” he said. “I won’t judge him because I don’t live here, but my grandmother always said to think before you speak."

Fagan is not trying to defend the perps but rather to protect the child and try to save them some trauma by allowing a plea to be entered and not force the child to have to sit through horrible cross examination by the defense.

[Blue Diadem]

7. Yes, I see that now, that he is trying to protect the child

and prevent that horrid cross examination from happening. I'm beginning to wonder now what was missing from the video. They obviously had some text scrolling on the screen of the early part of his comment but I wonder what preceded that.

Oh..your link gives me an error. no article ID

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Yeah, that's an issue I've got with mandatory sentencing laws.

Violation of sep. of powers, IMO, sentences should be decided by the courts, not politicians looking for votes.