ShoutWire Lifestyle

Supporters of Jessica's Law are outraged today after hearing and seeing a speech given by state representative James Fagan.

Before getting into the meat of this story, here's the speech by James Fagan that set off this controversy:



Indeed.

As we all know, within the world of snark and popular culture lawyers tend to get a bad rap. Hardened stories of a lawyer's iron-will and determination to bring misery upon others and get their way, at any cost, are oft times enough to make even the great Beowulf hide in a corner and cower in shame. No heart, no mercy.

While an image of such a person is fine for joking or casual conversation, it takes an entirely new meaning when applied to actual real world situations.

In his speech, Fagan said that defense attorneys would 'rip apart' a child rape victim on the stand if this new, more stringent 'Jessica's Law' for tracking sex offenders is passed.

Sure, Mr. Fagan may have had a point in his tirade against Jessica's Law. Children on the witness stand may be subjected to the vicious machinations of hardened defense attorneys without a heart. There is a client-attorney obligation in court cases; it's a hard truth. A lawyer's method of questioning may be wielded in such a way as to purposely make a child break down, both mentally and emotionally, when stakes are high for their clients.

Honestly, though, who on Earth would have the mind to want to do such things to a traumatized child? That'd be my question to Mr. Fagan.

Yes, the easy answer to the question would be a sex offender, who the law is created to prosecute. To that I'd actually add...lawyers, defense attorneys, and state representatives who vow to 'rip apart' a child on the witness stand.

Having a suit and tie, and being a natural asshole with political privilege, should not grant a person immunity from blatantly harassing or badgering a child. Anyone who does such a thing is not much better off than the people who are being prosecuted. What do you say, Mr. Fagan?

The Story of Jessica's Law

As many of you readers may recall, Jessica Marie Lunsford was a bright, cheerful 9-year-old girl from Homosassa, Florida. One early and tragic morning in February, Jessica was abducted from her home.

A man, named John Couey, admitted in a taped confession the details of his involvement with Jessica's abduction.

Living in a trailer only 100 feet away from Jessica's home, the criminally prone Couey cased and entered the house through an unlocked door around 3am.

Sneaking into Jessica's room, Couey woke her and said "Don't make a sound or nothin'." Couey then took Jessica, only 100 feet away, to the trailer he shared with two women.

Couey admitted to raping Jessica once right off, and after stashing her in a closet (while he went to work), he then raped her again on his bed the next morning.

After a weekend, Couey tricked the young Jessica into placing herself in two large, black garbage bags. He promised to return her safely home. He of course used the bags to suffocate Jessica, bury her in an obscure location and her decomposed body was not found until a month later.

The Need For Improved Punishment and Monitoring

This case happened during a time of sharp increase of police reports detailing child abduction and murder. Instead of being just another member of a victim's family, Jessica's father --Mark Lunsford-- decided he wanted to kick the butt of sex offenders and murderers. He decided to go public with his views on the need of better prosecution and law in tracking sex offenders. Mark Lunsford quickly found help of activists and politicians who felt the same way.

Together, they created the groundwork of Jessica's law. The basic premise of the law is that it would require all sex offenders to be electronically tagged and constantly monitored. As the law now takes a more widespread capacity and is under Senate review, it has been expanded to potentially include a minimum ten-fifteen year prison term for those convicted of abuse or inappropriate exploitation of children.

James Fagan feels the initiative is too Draconian and will violate the rights of accused and criminals. In light of the new law, and other caveats associated with it, Fagan states defense attorneys will show even less mercy when defending the accused. In response, Mark Lunsford has this to say:

"Why doesn’t he figure out a way to defend that child and put these kind of people away instead of trying to figure ways for defense attorneys to get around Jessica’s Law?"

Lunsford continued, "These are very serious crimes that nobody wants to take serious. What about the rights of these children?"

The Balance Between Law and Passion, Where Do We Stand?

The age-old battle and concern in our government has always pitted reason against emotion. Our system of law and justice is molded in such a way that bias, prejudice and our emotions are to be removed from a case when making judgment, or drafting law.

In light of this, great care has been given in assuring the accused and even criminals enjoy rights, fair treatment and do not become the victims of our natural human need and desire for revenge.

With cases that involve exploitation of children, the natural response of most people would be to defend the weak and viciously attack the accused, especially when suspicions of guilt are strong or proven. Our law counters such things with reason, courts and defense attorneys/politicians like Mark Fagan.

While this is good, I agree with Mark Lunsford. Our laws and provisions to protect children are far too weak. Criminals do not have sufficient deterrent to their crimes, nor are punishments clear-cut enough on state and federal levels. The matter needs more attention. Amber Alerts to improve public awareness of child abductions were a good start. A balanced Jessica's Law and Act is needed too.

What's not needed are comments like those expressed by James Fagan. Again:

"I'm gonna rip them apart," Fagan said and alluded to young rape/abduction victims in the video above. "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."

The main thing to remember, Fagan, is that the law is drafted to protect the people, particularly those who cannot defend themselves. Children have equal, if not greater need for protection and rights, than repeat offenders and habitual criminals. Our children need to be protected and any person who stands in the way of such protection, by implying said threats proposed by Fagan (to whatever attorney would stoop so low), should perhaps have a few criminal laws drafted against them as well.

I'm sure not only kids, but attorneys as well, can be forced to break down to cry on the stand and be assured a life of misery --perhaps in federal prison-- as well.