"a decent brain and a little time to think about the implications of what we're"
saying would have prevented some moron from saying...
"I’m going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined. That when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep. When they’re 19 years old they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody. And that’s not because I’m a nice guy. 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."
Instead of using his chosen tactic to preach against portions of this law he should have used your tact...
"For the record, I'm not against these laws; I'm for looking at them as part of a coherent policy which not only punishes the guilty but avoids additional unnecessary trauma to young victims. For example, what's wrong with using good old DNA evidence in these cases and bypassing the kids?"
BUT he didn't.
Trust me...I get it...I've got it from the beginning. This public figure used specific words and a tactic to make a point, an argument, in order to point out flaws in a law.
The problem I have with it is that he didn't say "Defense Lawyers" will "make sure that the rest of their life is ruined..." He said "I’m
going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined..." When you use that tactic, stating it in 1st person, to me that means you support that tactic to "grill" a child. Since he stated it in 1st person, I believe his mind is no better than the child rapist's mind. Would he or any other defense lawyer still choose this course of action of "grilling" even if all other evidence is so overwhelming against their client and the client still demands that he is innocent? I believe he and his supporters would because....
...the whole purpose of cross-examination -- regardless of who's conducting it -- is to undermine the testimony given against the defendant, whether by questioning the perceptions of the witness, or the biases of the people who've prepared that witness for testimony, or the biases of the witness him- or herself, or the consistency of the testimony with itself or with other evidence. And it's the absolute duty of EVERY defense counsel to represent his/her client zealously to the best of his/her ability within the bounds of the law.
Do I believe that innocent people are found guilty for crimes they have not commited so therefore we need defense lawyers? Yes I do.
Do I believe that all criminals have the right to a fair trial?
Yes I do.
Do I believe that a lawyer who believes in zealously grilling a child on the witness stand in order to defend his/her client should be hung by his/her speech devices (lips and tongue)?
Yes I do. (I had to go with lips and tongue instead of genitals because...lawyers like the ones J.Fagan describes don't have genitals big enough to wrap a thread around)
However...do I believe that there are good, honest, moral, lawyers in this world? Damn right I do (more than most people think...the way I see it is if people were good, honest, moral...there'd be a lot of defense lawyers out of work)
“What do you call 100 lawyers (or politicians) at the bottom of the ocean?…. A good start”.
Do I believe that Fagan and those that believe in his tactic should be the first of the 100....
Damn right I do.
(Stockingful...I know you are defending Democrats and lawyers...I perfectly understand that, expect it, and respect it...if J.Fagan was a far Right Republican Lawyer Politician...I would not have hesitated to respond in the same manner...By the way...I recant my statement of him being Liberal...I can't find anything stating how liberal he is)