James ("rip child apart on stand") Fagan is on board of directors of Boys & Girls Clubs of Tauton

James Fagan website ^ | 6-25-08 | Doug from Upland

[doug from upland]

By now, many of you have seen the outrageous comments of Massachusetts State Representative James Fagan, a Democrat. In defending a child rapist, he would tear apart the child on the stand and ruin the child's life forever. He made the comments arrogantly and shamelessly. Watch it here.

FAGAN'S WEBSITE SHOWS HOW IS INVOLVED IN SEVERAL CHILDREN'S ORGANIZATIONS.

ORGANIZATIONS: Massachusetts Academy of Trial Lawyers; Taunton Boys & Girls Club (Board of Directors); Taunton Little League; Taunton Youth Basketball Coach; Massachusetts Bar Foundation; Massachusetts Waterfowlers, Inc.; Babe Ruth League; High School Umpire; Bristol Ducks Unlimited; Southeastern New England Area Boys' Clubs of America (past Chairman).

CONTACT INFO FOR THE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB. You might want to call as I did and ask if he is going to be removed from the board.

I called FOX 25, the station that did the story and gave them a heads up on the boys and girls club angle. In a call to Fagan's office, they had no info about whether he would remove himself or be removed by the board.

FAGAN'S OFFICE: 617-722-2040

[Nonstatist]

Fagan, however, went way over the top

Maybe so, but you dont see a danger in "mandatory" sentences? Mandatory "sentences" in the school room end up with 12 year olds getting sexual offender status for giving a girl a hug. You want to take everybody off the hook for sentencing a husband to life imprisonment because his shrewish wife got her kids to comply with spurious charges of abuse against him?

Its hard not to notice that is men that end up getting screwed by this "automatic" sentencing, and not women. .. Mandatory anything gives me the heebee jeebees.

[TribalPrincess2U]

He was apoplectic on that tape of his rant in the House of Reprehensibles.

>b>Not good enough!

[lilylangtree]

This outrage coming from Massachusetts makes me not surprised at anything.

[Nonstatist]

the victims have rights too...

You have the right to face your accuser. That is to say, men also have the right to face their accuser. It's in the Constitution.

A courtroom is not a County fair, and if I was looking at mandatory life imprisonment because some woman looking to "punish" me trumped up sex charges and indoctrinated her kids against me, Id want to be vigorously defended as if my life depended on the Truth. Because it would.

[doug from upland]

Maybe so? Just maybe so? Nice diversion with the 12-year-old getting sexual offender status for giving a girl a hug. We are not talking about a hug. We are talking about child rapists and set of aggravating factors. Your argument doesn’t fly, counselor. I pray that your own daughter never has to face James Fagan.

New minimum sentences for child-rape clear Massachusetts house
6/5/2008
By Edward Mason

BOSTON — The Massachusetts House last night approved tough new penalties for child rapists and predators, but Republicans and some child welfare advocates said the Democratic-backed bill did not go far enough.

The bill, based on Florida’s Jessica’s Law, passed by the House 142-3, provides a series of mandatory sentences against child rapists, created three new types of crimes child predators can be prosecuted for, and added a host of aggravating factors — such as whether a weapon is used in the crime — to lengthen an assailant’s time in prison.

Supporters said the bill protected children while providing more stringent sentences for child sex offenders.

“It’s definitely tough enough,” said Rep. Michael Costello, D-Newburyport. “Every district attorney supports it and the attorney general helped draft it. Anyone who says it’s not tough enough is playing a political game.”

Republican Rep. Karyn Polito, who has pushed the Legislature unsuccessfully to pass a version of Jessica’s Law for three years, said the House measure did not guarantee a rapist or child predator would serve any time.

“When we say ‘rape of a child’ in Massachusetts,” Polito said on the House floor, “it should mean guaranteed jail time.”

The House bill, which must be approved by the Senate, would create three new criminal child rape crimes: aggravated, forcible child rape; aggravated statutory child rape; and aggravated assault and battery on a child.

The bill also increases to 15 years the current 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for raping a child while using a weapon.

It creates a mandatory minimum sentence for child rape, including 20 years for a subsequent offense for rape with force and 15 years for rape of a child with a weapon. It creates new aggravating factors for new crimes, such as forcing drugs or alcohol on the victim.

And it allows prosecutors to charge a subsequent offense for those who have previously been convicted of crimes such as indecent assault and battery on a child or attempted child rape.

Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett said by adding different offenses, prosecutors have more ways to put child predators behind bars.

“It gives us more tools to prosecute predators,” Blodgett said.

District attorneys also could issue subpoenas to more easily obtain the identities of people using computer accounts to lure children, something Blodgett also supports.

The bill is based on a Florida law named for Jessica Lunsford, a 10-year-old Florida girl abducted, raped and murdered by a repeat sex offender. Since 2005, 42 states have passed identical laws, including mandatory minimum sentences for first-time offenders.

Polito said she wanted to set a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for first-time child rapists, tougher than in the House bill.

“It (the House bill) still does not guarantee a convicted child rapist will do even one day in jail,” Polito said.

Child advocates said a “modified” version of Jessica’s Law wasn’t good enough.

“This makes things a little better,” said Laurie Myers, with the child advocacy group CommunityVoices. “But it’s not Jessica’s Law.”

Rep. Bradford Hill, R-Ipswich, also thought the House bill would have been better with the mandatory sentences.

“It could have been stronger,” Hill said.

But Hill said he is a realist and accepts a bill that is strong, though not everything he wanted.

Democrats though said having too many offenses with mandatory minimum sentences strips prosecutors of the leverage they need to secure a plea bargain when a conviction is difficult to come by. Costello, a former prosecutor, said getting a predator to agree to jail time convicted means they’ll be punished and, importantly, get placed on the state’s sex offender register.

“You get something rather than nothing,” Costello said.

[Redleg Duke]

It is embarassing that he belongs to Ducks Unlimited as well!

[Cicero]

No problem. I don’t know if he’s got problems in his personal life, but in any case what he said publicly is not the sort of thing a sponsor of childrens’ organizations should be saying. It deserves having attention called to it.

[Dante3]

He should be removed from any boys and girls clubs.

[GovernmentShrinker]

The accused have a right to face their accuser.

Yeah, and these slime buckets count on that loophole when choosing a helpless child for their victim. Ha ha, I can do whatever I want to you, because you'll be a basket case afterwards and I'll skate because your mommy and daddy won't let you testify because they know my lawyer will mess up your head even worse than I did.

Children have a right to blow the whistle on their attackers and to have adults handle the prosecution. Videotaped testimony from the child, physical evidence, and testimony from adults who have witnessed relevant events and behaviors before, during, and after the crime, is plenty.

[cherry]

too close to home for ya?.....

besides, the anger is directed at what he threatened he would do or lawyers would do to young rape/assualt victims, be they male or female....it is anger at the bill or his opposition to it....

[Redleg Duke]

For what it is worth, as a member of Ducks Unlimited, I just wrote an email to them requesting that this scumbag be removed from membership and permanently banned from the organization.

Hunters take enough hits from society without this!

[cherry]

why are you making this another male vs female issue?...

it has nothing at all to do with gender...

boys are victims of rape/assualt all the time...

go to the female bashing threads if thats what you're wanting...there's plenty of them...

[Nonstatist]

I pray that your own daughter never has to face James Fagan

Nice hyperbole, counselor. Stranger rapes are not all that common, as you probably know. Several sources I've seen suggest something like 46 percent of rapes are caused by "family members" and 50 to 78 percent by someone they know. Domestic disputes elevated to a pretty severe showdown of wills. But is it rape?

If theres a gun involved, or other aggravating factors, I'm fine with this. But this bill is more than that, IMO. IMO this is just another attempt to codify mandatory this, and mandatory that. Cookie cutter justice. Scary.

[Nonstatist]

it has nothing at all to do with gender

Of course not, Cherry. Cherry would never rape anybody, and nobody Cherry cares about would ever be dishonestly accused of rape. You're a very special lady.

BTW, studies are disputed but lots of good data suggests false accusations of rape are somewhere between 30 and 50 % of all accusations. Fed. gov. statistics say that 10 - 15 % of accusations are knocked down in the first 48 hours.

In my opininion, mandatory sentencing for rape is dumb, no matter how corrupt Massachusetts is. It may be a notoriously under reported crime, but its also notoriously over reported, as well. A dicey slope to climb.

[Nonstatist]

Children have a right to blow the whistle on their attackers and to have adults handle the prosecution. Videotaped testimony from the child, physical evidence, and testimony from adults who have witnessed relevant events and behaviors before, during, and after the crime, is plenty.

Then sentencing based on "videotaped" asccusations should not be mandatory.. Mandatory! And you can't cross examine the accuser??

The proliferation of flase rape claims (ie Duke Lacrosse Case) is a direct result of the loosening of due process protections under the law. Does anyone remember the numerous group molestation cases form the 80's, in particular the ones pursued by Janet Reno ( is she a favorite of people here?) Every one , and I mean every one of those case were spurious frauds. Young kids brainwashed by social workers to spout enormous lies, which were swallowed whole by a hystericalized jury. Shameful misjustices.

[GovernmentShrinker]

A coourt is no more likely to get the truth from a child being grilled in the courtroom by a hostile defense attorney, than from a child being videotaped answering questions posed by a social worker who made up her mind before the interview that the child had been molested. There are plenty of reasonable steps that can be taken to allow for a fair trial without putting a child on the stand to be interrogated by a defense attorney. Defense attorneys should be allowed to supply questions to be asked in a videotaped session outside the courtroom, and should be allowed to veto certain questioners just as jurors can be selectively excluded. And of course, the defense attorney is free to point out, and to bring in expert witnesses to testify, that children have often been led into making accusations of this nature that later turned out to be false. If a jury is viewing both the questioner and the child in the videotaped testimony, the jurors should be able to form some reasonable opinion as to whether the questioner is somehow leading the child and/or whether the child seems to be reciting things rather than speaking from memory. And obviously, if there is no clear physical evidence or convincing testimony from adult witnesses, a defense attorney would emphasize those points to a jury.

[pabianice]

It is not child abuse! It is an "alternative lifestyle"!

[Nonstatist]

And obviously, if there is no clear physical evidence or convincing testimony from adult witnesses, a defense attorney would emphasize those points to a jury.

The problem with "rape" cases in particular is that , especially with children involved, the jury pool has a tendency to be highly emotionalized, and how are you going to be able to ascertain whether the child has been coached, unless you talk to them directly (and even then?).Like I said, all the cases of group rape in the 80s were proven false, yet perfectly well meaning jurists were bamboozled by dishonest publicity seeking prosecutors (a la Reno). In one case in Mass., the kids told stories of gigantic elephants and the like, and the jury voted to convict anyway.

The difference in penalties between rape and theft is huge, yet we're left with the word of a child,un challenged, to convict ?

BTW, do you know the context of Fagans words? The State want to impose mandatory penalties, even if the judge is unconvinced by the "childs " testimony. I, for one, am not comfortable with that, carte blanche. In Massachusetts, particularly.

[gridlock]

You can’t blame Fagan for forseeing the obvious. With mandatory sentences, the accused will have every incentive to defend themselves vigorously. This is inevitable.

Perhaps it is a price worth paying in order to have the mandatory sentences, perhaps not. But it will happen.

You can’t blame Fagan for that.

[John123]

A courtroom is not a County fair, and if I was looking at mandatory life imprisonment because some woman looking to "punish" me trumped up sex charges and indoctrinated her kids against me

I would have to agree with you there... I have a friend that told me when he was a teenager... he hung out with this guy who was really popular with the ladies. And this guy could pick and choose who he wanted to be with... well... a pair of girls who were "rejected" trumped up a charge of rape against both of these guys. Fortunately, the judge saw through this and threw the case out. Afterwards... the judge told the two boys... "Son, you need to be more careful who you are around with..."

The point is... the courtroom can also be used for nefarious purposes by women and kids to "punish" a man. And believe me you... I would want the BEST attorney in the world to keep me out of jail... because I would be innocent... I'm not going to jail for twenty years because some kid or woman got "mad" at me...

this is the paradox of the court system... it all depends on who the judge or the jury believes... However, I wouldn't speak publically like that a-hole did...