"I'm going to make sure that the rest of their [a rape victims 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."

Believe me Mr. Fagan, those victims are already experiencing all those things, unless they turn it around and start abusing others instead, or as well as. Giving them a chance to put the barstewards away has got to help.

Lord knows, even though my statute of limitations has lapsed, I'd still love to see my abusers behind bars.

OK...this is a perfect example of how something taken out of context can make someone seem a LOT worse than they are.

Mr. Fagan was NOT referring to himself in this quote. He was referring to the actions that a defense lawyer would take in order to do his job - defend a client.

It was a hypothetical example of what a defense lawyer working for someone accused of child rape might say to themselves when the child was put on the stand. By definition of the job, a defense lawyer must defend his client to the best of his ability. Thus, Mr. Fagan was saying that said defense lawyer might use this quote as a strategy to win his client's case...again...EXACTLY what his job would be.

Now...would a lawyer actually think such a thing or say such a thing or DO such a thing? That depends on the lawyer.

Was Mr. Fagan a bit off in his reasoning and/or presentation of his point of view? Absolutely.

Personally, I do not agree entirely with the 20 minimum for child under 12 rape. I personally think the guilty person should serve 20 years and then be released with lifetime pedophile sex offender status and lifetime monitoring. If they then commit another under 12 rape, they should in my opinion be executed.

All that aside, we should not be placing quotes from people that are extremely out of context here. This quote makes Mr. Fagan out to be a horrible monster, when in reality, he is a state rep that has a certain opinion and was making it known.

Well, you are mostly correct. The context of the quote doesn't really make the quote any better. His intentions, however, are understandable. His point that a trial will be devastating, and that a defense lawyer will harshly question a child-victim, are true. Although, as the article states, if a lawyer is judging their defense based on the possible punishment, than the lawyer probably shouldn't be trying that case anyway. A person facing mandatory minimum sentence, shouldn't get any better defense just because of that.

Anyway, it was the method that Mr. Fagan used to make this argument that was/is objectionable. He went way over the line of decency in this speech, when he could have made his point less offensively. That's really what the "outrage" is... not his argument, but the argument's presentation.

Agree, agree, agree.

(When I hear on the news about someone dying in my hometown, I always hope it's evil one 1.... And every time we go to Vegas, I worry about meeting another perp who I heard had settled there....)

Wow. I can't believe I actually read this. How dumb do you have to be to think you can convince people of something like this?

Pretty sure this is the least of their worries.

Also won't be surprised if Fagan is exposed as a rapist.