My Photo



« FYYFF It's Black and Gold Forever | Main | Where is Bertha going? »



Agreed. What a horrible person.


Please go back and research this. The guy was arguing against mandatory sentences because prosecutors and CPS said that no defendant would plea bargain and would force young children to testify. His example was meant to stir outrage to defeat the bill, which it did.

Just Google his name and go back to early June. Conservative blogs are distorting this incident.


David are you for real? It is irrelevant what he was arguing for or against. He rants about what he would do to a victim of rape. He would do this in order to get a lighter sentence for his scum bag defendant.

I agree with the original post, this guy is a scum bag F'ing A$$hole, Idiot and anyone who defends this (David) is the same.


Actually David, he was arguing that as a defense attorney he claims HE would be forced to put children on the stand and attempt to impeach them since the minimum sentence was 15 years and he would refuse a plea bargain. You could argue the same thing could be said about underage witnesses in murder trials, since the minimum in Louisiana for 2nd degree is life and 1st degree life or death. The crime hasn't changed, and arguably the rape of a child younger than 12 is a gruesome act that deserves a base sentence of at least 15 years. If you, as a scumbag defense attorney, are willing to attempt to make a young rape victim cry on the stand and retract their testimony, I welcome you to it. But you have to sleep at night, and you also have to deny the logical and factual issue that juries severely dislike people who bully and belittle underage rape victims on the stand and you're not helping your client by doing so.

But please, reflect on the bashing the right-leaning sites are doing to him based on the rational and fair things he's said.


"...scumbag defense attorney..."

Did you really just say that? That's asinine. What if you needed one of those scumbag attorneys to defend you against a trumped up charge with only the word of child who's been coached half to death? Think about it - what if your ex decides that she's going to get even with you for whatever reason by making something up and convincing your child that you did it?

Back to the subject-
Maybe I'm just a scumbag fucking asshole idiot, but using exaggeration to make a point isn't exactly new. By illustrating the extreme consequences of the decision, he frames the issue in a whole new light. It's the same argument, albeit more strongly worded and passionately hyperbolic, that fueled the opposition to capital punishment for child rapists. It's in the best interests of the child to remove any barrier that could lead to more trauma, physical or emotional.

Again, personalize it for a minute. Would you be so dedicated to securing a minimum sentence if it was your child that could otherwise be spared the ordeal of a trial? Even without the extreme circumstances described by Fagan, the coaching and testifying and rehashing the events over and over again would be horribly traumatic. Is that justice - to torture a child so as to make sure the criminal is punished "enough"? Really, could ANY punishment be "enough"?

Minimum sentences are stupid, regardless of the crime, and they eviscerate our legal system. They tie a judge's hands and reduce the impact of his wisdom, experience and compassion, making him no more than a referee. They take strategy and negotiation away from a D.A., turning him into a simple cashier of justice. They take options away from non-scumbag attorneys who wish to help justice be served but still must secure the best deal for their clients.

And in the case of child rape, minimum sentences can't even serve as deterrents, since the crime, itself, is born of perversion and impulse, not rational decision making.

It's difficult to think with our heads instead of our guts when it comes to the protection of children. Fagan used his head to appeal to the gut, just like a good lawyer should.


Actually Fagan did not use logic, Fagan used emotion, if you are going to play that card. He directly appealed to people's "gut reactions" by creating the startling image of a crying child on the stand being cross-examined by a bulldog attorney in order to win his "argument".

Your logic, while not dumb at all, happens to be wrong in this instance. We have minimum sentences for murderers, rapists, arsonists, even thieves, what makes you think giving child rape a minimum sentence is going to somehow destroy the system? Our legislators have passed into law series of laws which their constituents WANT passed. And a judge IS a referee, especially for a jury trial, which most criminal trials are, so yes, I would expect him to sit there with his hands tied while a jury of the peers of the accused decide whether he was guilty. That would be exactly what I want him to do, and actually what he is expected to do when he takes his oath of office.

Also, these punishments aren't meant primarily as deterrents, they are meant to take that person OFF the streets for a long time and KEEP them off. Criminals don't obey laws, that's what makes them criminals, but jails keep them from committing more. This isn't a "victimless crime" where the benefit of the jail time could be argued for recidivists, this is an act which has permanently scarred an individual for life and society has let it be known they don't want that person to do it twice.


Wow, David, congratulations. And 7 kids I had no idea!! (When do you have time to sleep with a full buenssis running too??) What a blessing for you and your wife. Enjoy the new addition to your family, and thanks for the lesson on contingency plans.

The comments to this entry are closed.