Rep. Fagan is saying that our adversarial system of justice gives defense attorneys an incentive to intimidate opposing witnesses. If the charge is sexual abuse where the penalties are (rightly) large and stiff, the defense attorney has an even stronger incentive to do so.
<
p>That seems like an unsurprising observation. Rep. Fagan made it powerfully — so powerfully, that it is frightening. If one cuts out a lot of context, one can produce some very scary sound bites. But again, he’s point seems unsurprising.
<
p>Are you saying that someone who commits bad sound bites shouldn’t be a state rep?
eaboclippersays
he was elected to vote on what is right for his community and society not to push for weak laws so his potential law clients can get off. Their is a conflict of interest in his voting on this legislation in my opinion, and it goes to why our system is broken in Massachusetts. We have far to many criminal defense lawyers writing laws on Beacon Hill. This could be rectified with a part-time legislature that meets for a month. Then people other than lawyers, realtors and insurance agents would run for office.
laurelsays
is that lawyers serve in the state legislature? well i got news for ya, going to a part-time legis wouldn’t somehow magically prevent lawyers from still running for office. and it wouldn’t prevent voters from voting lawyers into office.
<
p>i like to see a mix of backgrounds in the legis (we need more scientists, to begin with…), but i’m thrilled to have trained lawyers in there. because, you know, they understand the legal ramifications of proposed legislation.
<
p>child advocates should be grateful that this guy was so forthright about how child witnesses will be treated in court. children do sometimes lie (coerced or not). any competent attorney will be sure to examine the child’s story to reveal any lies that may exist. thank the great nothingness that we have people willing to defend the accused. you, eabo, may be erroneously accused one day. if that happens, will you insist that your attorney smile at your accuser and sweetly agree to anything they say? i doubt it. i really, really doubt it.
kbuschsays
Yes, this could be a conflict of interest, but you’re not making that case.
<
p>Are the objections Rep. Fagan is making substantive? I don’t know enough about this piece of legislation to know whether he’s offering a useful perspective or he’s just being a roadblock. Sometimes legislation with good intents can be badly crafted, for example, and someone like a defense attorney who must actually deal with it will know that. His speech seems to be aimed at describing a very bad side effect — even though chock full of frightening sound bites. You’re going to have a tough time convincing me from this excerpt alone.
leonidassays
Judges are in place to use their discretion on sentencing matters…so let them judge
eaboclippersays
because the judiciary in Massachusetts doesn’t have a history of being lenient on convicted criminals. Just ask Maria Lopez. I’m sorry but in the commonwealth I am wholeheartedly for taking away judicial discretion once a verdict is reached.
laurelsays
i was appalled to learn from a lawyer (egads!) friend a few years ago just how easy it is for an adult to be convicted of child molestation based on nothing more than the child saying so. and in fact it has since happened to a member of my extended family, who pleaded guilty so as to minimize the sentence. whether he was or wasn’t truly guilty, i have no way of knowing. it was his word against the child’s. zero physical evidence. zero history on his part of molesting anyone. now he is branded a sexual predator for the rest of his life. i absolutely believe in protecting children and punishing criminals when we can be sure we know who the criminal is. but in this kind of situation, i am very happy that there was no minimum sentence he had to face, given that the conviction was based on nothing more than “he said, she said”.
kbuschsays
This seems like a reckless position based mostly on anecdote.
<
p>Do we know what leads to better outcomes?
eaboclippersays
felon that raped a boy while a screwdriver was put up against his throat seems like something that should have warranted lots of jail time no? Maria Lopez didn’t think so.
kbuschsays
Did you get my point? Or is this powerful sound bite overpowering the public policy question?
amberpawsays
Did you order the transcripts?
<
p>Did you hear the testimony?
<
p>Did you get to see the witnesses?
<
p>Did you get to see the exhibits?
<
p>But based on the reports in the Boston Herald or somewhere, Eabo, you know best, right?
<
p>Wrong. I don’t second guess in a trial I did not attend…as an appellate attorney I read the transcripts and every single exhibit before I second guess…what did you read besides the media – oh – wait – was it talk show evidence perhaps?
laurelsays
which is it, eabo? first it’s legislators using scary soundbites, then it’s lawyers becoming legislators, and now it’s mistakes made by the justice system. are you just upset about everything? how do you feel about mixing plaid and paisley?
kbuschsays
Curious as to whether there was any meat on this bone, I went next door to see what they might be chewing on at RMG. The impression I got was that Rep. Fagan was expressing the wrong kind of passion. That just seems like a kind of political correctness.
<
p>I also learn that the bill under question might refer to repeat offenders. As I understand it, sexual offenders have an extremely high recidivism rate. There are no known therapy modalities whose success rate offers any confidence. The problem is qualitatively different from that of rehabilitating other kinds of crimes. Public safety really demands a different response.
<
p>That said, EaBoClipper’s response was sort of meandering. (“It’s what he said!” “No! It’s the conflict of interest!” “No! It’s sentencing” “No! It’s …”) This sounds like someone who has landed a Gotcha with tasty bad sound bites but who does not really understand what it’s about and doesn’t really care so long as it’s negative. I could be wrong here — he might have been in a rush for example — but one might appreciate a fuller response.
laurelsays
it is now 24 hrs later, and still no clarifications have been offered or focusing of ideas has occurred. the gentle readers can can draw their own conclusions.
<
p>as for treatment of sexual predators, as i understand it there are many sorts because there are many reasons why people sexually molest or assault others. therefore it is not a foregone conclusion that once a sexual predator, always a sexual predator. if that were the case, wouldn’t we be giving them all life sentences? why ever let them again see the light of day?
eaboclippersays
at the way he characterized what he would do to children. I am guessing he would do that now without Jessica’s law.
<
p>I am upset that he is a lawyer and bringing his professional life into law making.
<
p>I am upset that he is stopping the protection of our children.
<
p>I can be upset at all three I am not meandering. He is a tool. And Laurel you probably don’t like him anyway he voted against “equality” as you call it.
<
p>He should not be in charge of the ethics committee as he is expressing a conflict of interest right onto the floor of the house.
<
p>Massachusetts is a laughing stock and its because of guys like this.
<
p>And before you ask here is my thought on what I would pass as a law, let’s call it EaBo’s law will you: Upon the first offense and conviction of rape of a child I am for castration, preferably without anesthesia.
laurelsays
laying out your objections more clearly. It is certainly fair to have more than one point of discomfort. It’s just that you didn’t do yourself any favors by not stating these points in the body of the diary.
<
p>In related news, I just heard on NPR that the supreme court has just ruled that those who rape children cannot be put on death row.
tbladesays
Don’t let the silly Constitution get in the way of your cruel and unusual punishment. /sarcasm
Like all those Florida female teachers sleeping with underage boys? Eabo’s law seems kind of discriminatory if a certain punishment (in this case, genital mutilation) can only be carried out on men.
<
p>Does Eabo propose that we give women offenders clitorectomies, like they do in some barbaric African/Asian fundamentalist Islamic and Christian cultures? Eabo’s law would show the world that America is far more civilized then then the backwards countries to which we wish to export democracy.
garysays
Here, condensing his speech: “I’m a really great and vicious defense lawyer, and and can crush some little kid with my words.”
<
p>Go for it Captain Ego. And when the jury hates you, the lawyer, for being a jerk in the courtroom, it’ll pay you back with a vote against your client. Zealous representation yes; malpractice? Yes, too. But if egotism were cause for resignation, we’d have no politicians.
Rep. Fagan is saying that our adversarial system of justice gives defense attorneys an incentive to intimidate opposing witnesses. If the charge is sexual abuse where the penalties are (rightly) large and stiff, the defense attorney has an even stronger incentive to do so.
<
p>That seems like an unsurprising observation. Rep. Fagan made it powerfully — so powerfully, that it is frightening. If one cuts out a lot of context, one can produce some very scary sound bites. But again, he’s point seems unsurprising.
<
p>Are you saying that someone who commits bad sound bites shouldn’t be a state rep?
he was elected to vote on what is right for his community and society not to push for weak laws so his potential law clients can get off. Their is a conflict of interest in his voting on this legislation in my opinion, and it goes to why our system is broken in Massachusetts. We have far to many criminal defense lawyers writing laws on Beacon Hill. This could be rectified with a part-time legislature that meets for a month. Then people other than lawyers, realtors and insurance agents would run for office.
is that lawyers serve in the state legislature? well i got news for ya, going to a part-time legis wouldn’t somehow magically prevent lawyers from still running for office. and it wouldn’t prevent voters from voting lawyers into office.
<
p>i like to see a mix of backgrounds in the legis (we need more scientists, to begin with…), but i’m thrilled to have trained lawyers in there. because, you know, they understand the legal ramifications of proposed legislation.
<
p>child advocates should be grateful that this guy was so forthright about how child witnesses will be treated in court. children do sometimes lie (coerced or not). any competent attorney will be sure to examine the child’s story to reveal any lies that may exist. thank the great nothingness that we have people willing to defend the accused. you, eabo, may be erroneously accused one day. if that happens, will you insist that your attorney smile at your accuser and sweetly agree to anything they say? i doubt it. i really, really doubt it.
Yes, this could be a conflict of interest, but you’re not making that case.
<
p>Are the objections Rep. Fagan is making substantive? I don’t know enough about this piece of legislation to know whether he’s offering a useful perspective or he’s just being a roadblock. Sometimes legislation with good intents can be badly crafted, for example, and someone like a defense attorney who must actually deal with it will know that. His speech seems to be aimed at describing a very bad side effect — even though chock full of frightening sound bites. You’re going to have a tough time convincing me from this excerpt alone.
Judges are in place to use their discretion on sentencing matters…so let them judge
because the judiciary in Massachusetts doesn’t have a history of being lenient on convicted criminals. Just ask Maria Lopez. I’m sorry but in the commonwealth I am wholeheartedly for taking away judicial discretion once a verdict is reached.
i was appalled to learn from a lawyer (egads!) friend a few years ago just how easy it is for an adult to be convicted of child molestation based on nothing more than the child saying so. and in fact it has since happened to a member of my extended family, who pleaded guilty so as to minimize the sentence. whether he was or wasn’t truly guilty, i have no way of knowing. it was his word against the child’s. zero physical evidence. zero history on his part of molesting anyone. now he is branded a sexual predator for the rest of his life. i absolutely believe in protecting children and punishing criminals when we can be sure we know who the criminal is. but in this kind of situation, i am very happy that there was no minimum sentence he had to face, given that the conviction was based on nothing more than “he said, she said”.
This seems like a reckless position based mostly on anecdote.
<
p>Do we know what leads to better outcomes?
felon that raped a boy while a screwdriver was put up against his throat seems like something that should have warranted lots of jail time no? Maria Lopez didn’t think so.
Did you get my point? Or is this powerful sound bite overpowering the public policy question?
Did you order the transcripts?
<
p>Did you hear the testimony?
<
p>Did you get to see the witnesses?
<
p>Did you get to see the exhibits?
<
p>But based on the reports in the Boston Herald or somewhere, Eabo, you know best, right?
<
p>Wrong. I don’t second guess in a trial I did not attend…as an appellate attorney I read the transcripts and every single exhibit before I second guess…what did you read besides the media – oh – wait – was it talk show evidence perhaps?
which is it, eabo? first it’s legislators using scary soundbites, then it’s lawyers becoming legislators, and now it’s mistakes made by the justice system. are you just upset about everything? how do you feel about mixing plaid and paisley?
Curious as to whether there was any meat on this bone, I went next door to see what they might be chewing on at RMG. The impression I got was that Rep. Fagan was expressing the wrong kind of passion. That just seems like a kind of political correctness.
<
p>I also learn that the bill under question might refer to repeat offenders. As I understand it, sexual offenders have an extremely high recidivism rate. There are no known therapy modalities whose success rate offers any confidence. The problem is qualitatively different from that of rehabilitating other kinds of crimes. Public safety really demands a different response.
<
p>That said, EaBoClipper’s response was sort of meandering. (“It’s what he said!” “No! It’s the conflict of interest!” “No! It’s sentencing” “No! It’s …”) This sounds like someone who has landed a Gotcha with tasty bad sound bites but who does not really understand what it’s about and doesn’t really care so long as it’s negative. I could be wrong here — he might have been in a rush for example — but one might appreciate a fuller response.
it is now 24 hrs later, and still no clarifications have been offered or focusing of ideas has occurred. the gentle readers can can draw their own conclusions.
<
p>as for treatment of sexual predators, as i understand it there are many sorts because there are many reasons why people sexually molest or assault others. therefore it is not a foregone conclusion that once a sexual predator, always a sexual predator. if that were the case, wouldn’t we be giving them all life sentences? why ever let them again see the light of day?
at the way he characterized what he would do to children. I am guessing he would do that now without Jessica’s law.
<
p>I am upset that he is a lawyer and bringing his professional life into law making.
<
p>I am upset that he is stopping the protection of our children.
<
p>I can be upset at all three I am not meandering. He is a tool. And Laurel you probably don’t like him anyway he voted against “equality” as you call it.
<
p>He should not be in charge of the ethics committee as he is expressing a conflict of interest right onto the floor of the house.
<
p>Massachusetts is a laughing stock and its because of guys like this.
<
p>And before you ask here is my thought on what I would pass as a law, let’s call it EaBo’s law will you: Upon the first offense and conviction of rape of a child I am for castration, preferably without anesthesia.
laying out your objections more clearly. It is certainly fair to have more than one point of discomfort. It’s just that you didn’t do yourself any favors by not stating these points in the body of the diary.
<
p>In related news, I just heard on NPR that the supreme court has just ruled that those who rape children cannot be put on death row.
Don’t let the silly Constitution get in the way of your cruel and unusual punishment. /sarcasm
<
p>Why do Republicans hate the Constitution?
as “rape of a child” under eabo’s law?
Like all those Florida female teachers sleeping with underage boys? Eabo’s law seems kind of discriminatory if a certain punishment (in this case, genital mutilation) can only be carried out on men.
<
p>Does Eabo propose that we give women offenders clitorectomies, like they do in some barbaric African/Asian fundamentalist Islamic and Christian cultures? Eabo’s law would show the world that America is far more civilized then then the backwards countries to which we wish to export democracy.
Here, condensing his speech: “I’m a really great and vicious defense lawyer, and and can crush some little kid with my words.”
<
p>Go for it Captain Ego. And when the jury hates you, the lawyer, for being a jerk in the courtroom, it’ll pay you back with a vote against your client. Zealous representation yes; malpractice? Yes, too. But if egotism were cause for resignation, we’d have no politicians.