Previous post
Next post
All because of what he says would be:
… a mandatory sentence of draconian proportions…
Really? Draconian proportions?
Let’s get a little context going. Here’s the video:
Let’s get straight about one thing here. We aren’t talking about Les Miserables here. No one’s locking someone up for twenty years because they stole a crust of bread. We’re talking about rapists, repeated offenders, who not only rape an innocent person, but rape a child. It’s one thing to want the best thing for your client. But to go after a victim?! And to go after that victim when he or she is a child?! How much lower can you get?
I don’t know that I can think of a worse crime than raping a child. I really don’t. And the law he’s so outraged over is Jessica’s Law, which would require a twenty-year sentence for those who rape children, and is not tough enough, in my opinion. Rape deserves capital punishment, in my opinion, and especially rape of a child. And even if you don’t agree with that… on what twisted, fucked up planet do you have to live on to wish harm to a child who has been raped in order to save the ass of the shithead who raped them!? How warped does your mind have to be to not only think something like that, but to say it out loud? I mean, this is what he said he wants to happen to these children:
I’m gonna rip them apart! I’m gonna make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they’re eight years old they throw up, that when they’re twelve years old they won’t sleep, when they’re nineteen years old they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.
I mean, honestly, wanting to ensure your client’s freedom is one thing. Wanting to destroy the life of the victim is not even relevant! The child did not do this to his client. The client did this, and further ruining the child’s life because the asshole rapist got caught is the most ridiculous and offensive thing I have ever heard in my entire life.
Incidentally, maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see any outrage at the Feminist blogs. None whatsoever from the women who claim to be so concerned about eradicating sexism in this country.
Really, there’s not a lot more I can say about this. I used the F-word in this post, which I almost never do, so that should let you know just how pissed off this guy made me.
This was Massachusetts State Representative James Fagan, Democrat, reminding you of who not to vote for and where not to live.
Hat Tips: Hot Air, Dave at Ace of Spades, and my colleague Jay at Stop the ACLU
Speechless, I am fricking speechless.
No, I’m not. I generally try not to wish ill on those who express opinions I disagree with, but this is asshole needs to be drawn and quartered.
This takes the general sickness of the liberal belief that everyone is a victim and takes it to uncharted territory. It’s like the guy is trying to do a reductio ad absurdum or something. If you had told me this in the street without the video to back it up, I would have thought it was a sick joke.
Some people need to be thrown to the volcano gods, and I think he is one of them.
Okay, so what he’s doing is making the same argument about the one-strike that our liberals out here in Cali made about three-strikes; the same argument they make about waterboarding, vis a vis the awful things that will happen to our troops if/when they’re captured if it’s common knowledge “that the United States tortures.”
He’s saying defense attorneys will be forced to “rip into” these little kids, do whatever it takes, to keep their clients from going to jail for 25 years.
Like all effective lies, it has just a kernel of truth to it. It’s a point I’d want to consider while I was voting on it. But it’s utterly dishonest because for it to make sense you’d have to be able to advance the argument “and if we don’t pass Jessica’s law, everyone’s going to be kind to the rape victims and life will be easy as pie for them.” Nobody’s going to say that because there isn’t a shred of truth to it. And since that isn’t true, the argument he’s trying to make, is feckless and meaningless.
Having said that, I find it amusing in a sad way: In some places, if you’re a conservative you can say “I’m not a racist” until you’re blue in the face, and supposedly “middle of the road” people will call you one because you’re conservative, even though you haven’t said or done anything that’s racist. But meanwhile, those same “middle of the road” folks will think of liberals as “nice” people, pretty much just because liberals want to be thought of as that way, when responsible public officials like Fagan are running around spewing the garbage like what you just heard. It’s an interesting thing, I think, about how the human mind works. You give other people’s money away to prove you’re a nice guy, you spend some time accusing others of not being nice — people will feel pressured to tell each other you’re a nice guy even though they themselves don’t believe it.
I think we have a primal instinct to keep an eye out for the loud guy, the guy who is easily aroused into accusing others of being nasty things, and then do our best to ingratiate ourselves with him even though he doesn’t deserve it.
That’s about the only reason I can think why such a “gentleman” would be serving in our Congress, even if he does come from the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.
Toa says: “Liberal” Elites are just being more and more honest about their true selves every week, it seems…
Mat says: I would simple say “douchebag”
The only thing I can really say about that is if the people of Massachusetts really want to do something about it, they will. Otherwise, one gets what one wants. If they don’t pass serious laws, then that’s the type of society they want.
Rob Farrington says: I’ve just been watching the BBC news (which switches to CNN after a certain time), and apparently the supreme court has just announced that the death penalty for child rape is ‘cruel and unusual’.
I’m sorry, it isn’t. I’d oppose the death penalty for the one reason that I’d worry that if a child rapist had no further legal consequences to worry about from killing a child compared to raping them, then he might do just that, to stop his victim from testifying in court against him (and the utter shit you were posting about is a disgrace to humanity, let alone his profession).
So I’d support physical castration followed by a VERY long period of imprisonment, instead. Some people might say “rape is about power and anger rather than sex, and a castrated male would be likely to be very angry”, but what about the deterrent value? If it really is about power, then I imagine that the kind of man who would consider rape wouldn’t exactly relish the idea of being emasculated.
8 Comments