On morning in May 2007, Omar Willock, then 19, called Roberto Duncanson, 20, a “faggot” on the street in Crown Heights, New York. Duncanson mouthed off back to him and walked away. Willock followed and stabbed Ducanson “four times in the back. Duncanson died roughly one hour later at Kings County Hospital.” After being found guilty in March, yesterday Willock was sentenced to 15 years-to-life in prison; he will have to serve at least 23 years. The hate crime charge against Willock was dismissed after a witness’ testimony was less than convincing; she had been subjected to “snitching” threats and attacks in her neighborhood. Willock’s attorney maintains his client did not kill Duncanson.
Helga von ornstein
Who said justice doesn’t prevail in the end? You see, what many young thugs who have never served more than 6 months at best find out the hard way is how the “hard timers” react to young, smart mouth punks who enter the system for the first time to do hard time, which is what he is now going to do.
Keeping him alive and imprisoning him was the best punishment. Prison is no picinic, race be damn. Rape (or threat of) is used to keep the young toughs in line and everyday he is going to wake up to that reality and hate himself for not letting that “faggot” walk down the street minding his own business like he was doing.
The day he gives in to gay sex will be the day he becomes the very thing he thought he hated. Another young life waisted for taking the life of another young man.
Sam
I live in Crown Heights and this entire story is tragic. Another young gay man, killed for who he was. Another teenager sentenced to spend his most productive years in prison because he thought violence was the answer.
And very few people will ask what’s wrong here? And even fewer will realize that until we address the root causes of poverty, racism, homophobia and violence in this country, this is a history that will just keep repeating itself.
Jonathan
why do we continue to pour billions of dollars and millions of our children into prisons?
Jonathan
not that what this dude did should go unpunished, i was just considering the paradox
Sam
@Jonathan: Agreed. This crime can’t go unpunished. But if we put as much money and effort into educating and mentoring poor youth as we do into incarcerating them, many fewer crimes like these would happen.
TANK
It’s a shame he wasn’t treated to lethal injection. Justice won’t be served until the needle is in his arm.
sal(the original)
sad…..its like that case with the lady who had the face transplant,where is the justice??!!!
Sam
@TANK: I am also enraged that this murder took place. But it makes no sense to me to try to bring about less murder by calling for more.
TANK
@Sam:
Why? What’s wrong with capitol punishment? Kant argued that in order to sustain the implicit social contract upon which civil society and, more importantly, all legal and social structures that facilitate living together is made possible–capitol punishment for crimes is necessary. This guy broke his end of the bargain specifically, by taking a life. Is there no consequence for that? Taking a life, as far as I can tell isn’t the same thing as going to prison for 23 years.
TANK
@TANK:
capital. I hate that.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
You always let other people do your thinking for you (Kant, and that bloody old Book of Exodus)?
Here’s a litle argument:
When the justice system makes a mistake, as it regularly does, it’s pretty hard to bring a dead person back to life.
RainaWeather
@TANK: Kant was one person.
TANK
Regularly? I don’t see that. If you’re going to look to the extreme minority who have been falsely arrested and sentenced to death, you might extend also to those who have been sentenced to life in prison. Now no one can bring back the lifetimes lost for those people, either. So why not do away with all legal punishment and prisons? Is that what you’d prefer? Loosing rapists, murderers, gang banging thieves and crooks on the street?
Also, contrary to a priori ultra liberal spin (dr. mill would be spinning his grave if he knew what you idiots were doing with his theory), the death penalty AS retributive justice DOES dissuade crime. Studies have been conducted that demonstrate that states have had violent crime rates reduce upon the implementation of the death penalty. IT seems like a preventative tool, too.
Are you comparing Kant to the book of exodus? LMAO! You’re not very intelligent. I happen to like his argument…go bit further, and I don’t. But why is it wrong? Because of the extreme number of falsely convicted and sentenced? No, I don’t think so given that it serves it purpose and, does more good than harm.
TANK
@RainaWeather:
You can count, too!
Sam
@TANK: I do not believe murder is ever morally justified, whether committed by an individual or the state. We could argue about whether studies show that state-sanctioned murder prevents crime – and there are some rather compelling studies that support both sides of that argument – but that won’t really matter to me. I fundamentally believe that murder is always wrong.
strumpetwindsock
Yes my dear, but you are forever trotting out the ideas of thinkers great and not-so great and treating them as if they are the final word on an argument.
Death is not the same as 23 years? Of course not. But hardly anything in our justice system follows the old Mosaic “eye for an eye” law.
Do we burn down arsonists’ houses, mutilate people convicted of assault and do nothing at all to people caught smoking dope?
Perhaps under sharia law, or secular law in Kant’s day the main concern was making punishment that fits the crime, but that is not how most justice systems work nowadays.
Sam
@TANK: One more thing: Kant may have reasoned brilliantly that state-sanctioned murder is necessary to maintain the social contract, but he lived before 94 countries, including nearly all of Europe, abolished the practice. So far, their societies have not collapsed.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
It’s not eye for an eye that Kant is arguing for, however. Reasonable restitution in terms of property does not require eye for an eye. However, the only way to atone for taking a life is giving one–no property exchange or hard time can make up for that.
TANK
@Sam:
Right, and kant didn’t think murder was morally justified, either. Would you consider taking payment for doing a job stealing? Well, taking a life to sustain the contract responsible for the organization of society–as specified by the terms of that contract that rational agents would commit themselves to–is not murder. It’s balancing a journal.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
I wasn’t speaking about Kant, I was speaking about your assumption that the old religious eye for an eye law from Exodus is the automatic rule to follow.
And I just explained that no other crime that I can think of has a sentence based on an eye for an eye. It is not possible in any case, even in the case of murder. Nobody can pay back a life.
So the argument that capital punishment is the only possible sentence for murder doesn’t make sense, and it isn’t even consistent with sentencing of virtually all other crime.
I understand you support capital punishment and I’m not going to try to change your mind, but it is a fact that many people, many criminologists, many nations, and even many people who have experienced murder of loved ones disagree with you.
TANK
I wasn’t speaking about Kant, I was speaking about your assumption that the old religious eye for an eye law from Exodus is the automatic rule to follow.
Then you weren’t addressing what I wrote…LOL! I agree, lex talionis not the rule to follow.
TANK
Nobody can pay back a life.
They can’t bring the person back, but they sure can pay it back with their own–thus affirming the standard that murder is wrong, and fulfilling their end of the contract.
TANK
In fact, they can’t be whole people again ever fit to be reintroduced to society until that debt is paid in their life. So it’s restorative, too…the goal is to make sure that they at least die a person, worthy of moral consideration…because as soon as they took the life of another, they are no longer “persons” in the sense, and society has no obligation to treat them as people or with any moral consideration.
TANK
And lastly, you take issue with wrongful conviction and sentencing in some death penalty cases. I agree, it’s terrible and there’s no defense for it. But I don’t level my criticism at the death penalty, but the justice system that failed these individuals. That is where substantive change needs to occur to minimize or prevent these occurrences of wrongful conviction and sentencing–not with the death penalty itself.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
And that’s not “an eye for an eye”?
Sorry baby, you can call a pig a goat, but it is still a pig.
@TANK:
Really?
Murderers aren’t persons? Society has no obligations toward them?
As I understand it even convicted murderers have protection under the law. They must be fed, receive medical treatment, be protected from harm or from abuse. If a person in prison were to kill a convicted murderer – even one under sentence of death – that person would be charged and tried.
Many murderers serve their time, and return to society. They can vote, own property, and do most things the rest of us can.
So you may be expressing your personal opinion, but it has no foundation in the law
Kid A
@TANK: I think the Sunk Cost concept is particularly relevant here.
Kid A
@Kid A: damned links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
Right, but even dogs are protected by laws. They have forfeited their moral agency by acting outside of morality, and the contract that they have obligated themselves. Thus, they have forfeited their right or entitlement to be treated as moral agents because of that contract violation. Now the contract needs to be enforced or else it’s clearly void, and we no longer have a functioning society.
As to it being an eye for an eye, it is not as I explained. Most violations of the rational contract are suitably enforced in prison terms and fines. This, however, is the exception as there is simply no substitute for life.
TANK
@Kid A:
Specifically, how so? How is the conviction of one for murdering another irrelevant to their sentencing?
If you’d like to talk about the actual costs vs. benefits, I think the violent crime rate decreases as a direct result of capital punishment are a good example of the benefits.
TANK
And for full disclosure, I disagree with this argument–but not for any of the non reasons and quasi arguments you folks have provided. Despite its reputation, the Kantian system is an extremely elegant (everything its special place for a good reason) example of that secular enlightenment goal of no open ended questions, and one still relevant today–being that the careful application of reason can solve practically any problem. It’s an extremely sophisticated clock. To see where Kant’s world unravels fatally, one needs to be immersed in it…and understand it, because it’s not obvious–a little thread sticking out of a shirt that actually holds it together.
But what the hell, I’ll use his arguments against you any day, and I’m sure not going to just give it away. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS JUSTIFIED.
Sam
@TANK: Again, you’re assuming that state-sanctioned murder is the only way to “sustain the contract responsible for the organization of society.” Europe, Canada, and all the other countries that have abolished state-sanctioned murder would prove that assumption wrong.
(Neither here nor there, but it’s an interesting tactic to argue contractarianism on a gay blog, considering that sodomy has often been considered a violation of the social contract, often – and sometimes still – punishable by death)
You’ve done a lot of linguistic and logical back flips here, but I’m not really sure what you’re trying to accomplish. I think it’s fairly simple. If murder is wrong, then it’s wrong no matter who is doing the murdering.
TANK
@Sam:
It wouldn’t prove anything wrong–it’s not an assumption, but the conclusion of an argument. It vitiates the contract by not enforcing it with capital punishment. I mean, you suggestion would be as reasonable a rejoinder as me suggesting that europe is on the decline…
mike
TANK IS RIGHT
you dont even listen to his arguments
fags, we need to be less soft on shit
you can’t rely on live and let live if they don’t want to let you live your life peacefully.
if the death penalty makes people fear killing, that deterrence alone is enough to warrant it. then take into account that if they had killed someone you loved, you’d want nothing more than to have them eat shit and die, and would exact that revenge yourself if it were legal (thank god the state does it for us in most states)…
Sam
@TANK: If you’re interested in staying solely in the realm of hypothetical argument, then yes, you could argue that by not murdering murderers, the state fails in its obligation to uphold its end of the social contract, thereby weakening it. In the real world, however, it would be difficult to argue that all 94 countries that have abolished state-sanctioned murder have weaker societies than China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the U.S., the five most murderous nations. Reason is nice, but the real world is all that matters. To paraphrase the existentialists.
But that’s an argument I never meant to step into. The social contract is mostly a theory of how societies function together, not morality, and not really applicable to what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that murder is always wrong, no matter who does the murdering.
Since you brought up Kant, and seem eager to prove your philosophical bona fides, can you find a maxim that allows the executioner to commit a state-sanctioned murder and passes Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative? I can’t. If you go with “I can kill him because he killed someone else,” then you continue on ad infinitum, with each killer killing the one before him. If you go with “I can kill him because the state has sanctioned it” or “I can kill him to uphold the social contract,” then the Holocaust and hanging gay kids in Iran suddenly become “moral.” Certainly not something I’d will to be a moral law.
I’m not sure Kant would be with you on this one.
strumpetwindsock
@mike:
I’m not too worried about it. We haven’t had the death penalty in my country since 1976. Despite what they say in the movies, blind vengance sure doesn’t live up to its reputation
And speaking of the U.S. this is interesting:
Michigan was the first english-speaking jurisdiction in the world to abolish the death penalty for all crimes except treason.
Good on them.
TANK
@Sam:
I don’t need to prove my bona fides, LOL! I’m the philosopher king, bitch; but you can have my crown as it’s worthless. Clearly not–hence mention of the study that indicated that capital punishment as preventative justice works out by dissuading scum from killing people.
Your objections are based on a misunderstanding of what the social contract is. It is rationally determined. That rules out whim religion and whim morality. Homosexuality is not outside of morality, then…as sexual orientation is one of those suprarational goods.
Oh wiki, so flawed. Get an understanding by reading the original source of the idea… Right? Right. Yes, I can justify the executioner’s job given the categorical imperative. He is assisting someone become whole again by acting to enfroce a contract on behalf of the state. He is not merely taking a life. WHen I correct for your misapprehension of the social contract that kant would endorse, the holocaust and persecution of homosexuals is no longer permissable.
strumpetwindsock
@Sam:
Yeah, he’s been proving his bona fides for awhile in here. The rest of us are just hicks in the sticks.
Though I am interested in this argument about how murderers magically turn into non-humans and somehow turn back again when pay for their crimes through the sacrifice of death.
(sounds kind of religious to me, though)
Is that just convicted murderers? First? second degree? manslaughter? What if you don’t get caught? are you off the hook? How about people who have abortions? War criminals? George Bush? How about if you’re a soldier in war, or a cop, but you actually enjoy killing people for fun? do you have to die to pay for your sins too?
And what happens if you’re on death row, but you have a heart attack? Are you shit out of luck?
Of course SOME people who hold irrational religious beliefs think all murderers are going to hell anyway, but I realize that might be a bit harsh.
TANK
I love your distinction between the hypothetical and the real. that’s cute. which hypothesis are you operating under right now?
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
Good on them? I hate to say it, but all that’s there is you saying it…no argument…no reasoning…not nothin’. You suck.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Geez, dude. Never heard of slang?
I’m opposed to the death penalty on principle, and I am pleasantly surprised that an American state was the first English speaking jurisdiction in the world to abolish it.
Was that clear enough?
Sam
@TANK: Ah, Tank. I’ve forgotten what it’s like to get into a “discussion” with you. Linguistic back flips. Ignoring evidence. Blind assertions. And just plain nastiness. I won’t play.
Okay, I will for a minute, just for fun. “Assisting someone to become whole again?” What kind of Oprah bullshit is that? Talk about rigorous logic. What does that even mean? And if it means what I think it might, are you really suggesting that having everyone running around like Dog the Bounty Hunter revenging slights against others on behalf of the state is somehow the moral way to live?
I’ve read Kant, thanks. I’ve also read past him. His writings on morality are completely hypothetical and try to posit subjective judgment as objective truth. That’s why they’ve been largely rejected. And while the concept of “reality” is certainly up for discussion and debate, if you can’t discern the hypothetical from the actual than you have bigger problems than being a philosophical dilettante.
Okay, that’s enough. I apologize for indulging my lesser urges and trashing you. All things being equal, I would that you not suffer, so I hope you don’t. You seem like an angry guy. I hope that’s just my perception. Either way, I hope you find peace.
Sam
For anyone who might be reading along at home, while there are studies that have found some deterrence effect from state-sanctioned murder, most evidence points to no deterrence effect and the consensus among criminologists and researchers is that executing murderers doesn’t prevent new murders.
Don’t believe me or Tank. Look it up for yourself.
TANK
@Sam:
Well, all morality is basically hypothetical given the is ought distinction. You can’t call a rapist triple murderer wrong without relying on an ought, not an is…for he did do it…
LOL!
But where are my linguistic back flips as you call them? “Blind” asserstions? I can still see, thanks… Where are those?
Okay, obviously you haven’t read Kant or you’d understand that for Kant, capital punishment is RESTORATIVE justice, not preventative or even retributive. Kant certainly didn’t believe in retributive justice, as no END is to be treated as a means to an end…or no person is to be treated as a means to an end.
TANK
THe consensus doesn’t match the stastical data. If you endorse capital punishment for preventative reasons (people less likely to commit violent crimes for fear of being caught, convicted and sentenced to death), you’re more than justified, as people are, in fact, less likely to do it because of that possibility.
TANK
@TANK:
And don’t believe me! Look it up for yourself.
TANK
And no, you’re wrong about Kant. There are Kantians still alive. Korsgaard’s one of ’em (she teaches at harvard). So some of the best minds in the ethics business are kantians…to this day…. Kant has been rejected not because of “objective truth” (that’s a meaningless term, btw…meaningless…it means nothing, but intimidates people for some reason…it’s all emotion right there–that’s the only significance of the utterance), but strictly on logical grounds.
Phoenix (You Know Which One)
I don’t believe in vengeance or retribution. I do believe in justice and mercy. There is no mercy in keeping a 19 year old locked up in a cage for 23+ years to be beaten and raped by other convicts. I think lethal injection, a form of euthanasia, would be far kinder than that.
If a pit bull, with little or no provocation, viciously killed someone, would you even consider rehabilitation? Would you consider it even possible? Would you ever allow the animal out on the street? No, no sane or reasonable person would. You would put the animal down as humanely and quickly as possible and punish the person who let the dog roam the streets unchecked. You would make sure the person who turned the dog into a vicious killer never had access to another dog or puppy ever again.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
Yeah, on principle–which is what Kant establishes–the ethical legitimacy of capital punishment. Boooyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! LOL!
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
Don’t call me dude, you fuckin’ cunt.
TANK
“If he has committed murder, he must die. There is no similarity between life, however wretched it may be, and death, hence no likeness between the crime and the punishment unless death is judicially carried out on the wrong-doer.”
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
So that’s supposed to be the end of the argument?
See what I mean about you letting other people do your thinking for you?
Sorry dude, Kant may think it is restorative justice, but there are plenty of people who have lost loved ones to murder who do not agree.
And if you start thinking about where your little cycle of restorative blood atonement leads – especially when it comes to situations like war or genocide – that kind of vengeful logic would have us killing each other forever.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
But it wouldn’t have us killing each other forever. that’s simply invalid! LOL! you have no argument–of course that’s where the argument ends, then…you have nothing…LOL! good lord, this is hilarious.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Dude, I’m sure I’ve read that somewhere before. Exodus 21, wasn’t it?
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Because Kant said so, eh?
TANK
You prove that age and wisdom…well, strumpet, they are forever distinctly instantiated. That is to say, that age and wisdom are two very, very different concepts, POPS!
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
He provided an argument. One I’ve faithfully reconstructed. If you have a counterargument…well…all ears, grampy.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Well I think I already have, if you were paying attention.
Some sentencing is punitive (though most criminologists lean more heavily towards rehabilitation), but there is no other crime that is punished by the theory of “an eye for an eye”.
We don’t burn down arsonists’ houses, rape rapists or mutilate those who attack others. Yet some people have an obsession with blood atonement for murder which is irrational in its biblical simplicity.
And the notion that murder can be “restored”, even by killing the murderer, is sheer lunacy.
You say you’re a devout atheist, yet your talk about murderers becoming non-persons and having to undo that through sacrifice is as bad as the worst religious nonsense I have ever heard. Does any of it matter at all if they’re dead after the execution? Do you think someone like a sociopath would care about the peril his immortal soul would be in if he didn’t pay the price? It’s imaginary claptrap.
There’s no metaphysical price to pay; You kill someone and that person is dead, and if you get away with it and don’t care that is the end of the story.
TANK
Some sentencing is punitive (though most criminologists lean more heavily towards rehabilitation), but there is no other crime that is punished by the theory of “an eye for an eye”.
So what? No one but galileo believed that the world was the center of the solar system (that’s not true, of course–kepler, but will suffice for an example). WHo cares? There’s no other crime quite like murder, is there.
[quote]
We don’t burn down arsonists’ houses, rape rapists or mutilate those who attack others.[/quote]
Yeah, so? Arson isn’t murder…rape isn’t murder…
Yet some people have an obsession with blood atonement for murder which is irrational in its biblical simplicity.
I don’t think it’s irrational at all. As Kant said, no matter how horrible life is, it is imcomparable to death…
And the notion that murder can be “restored”, even by killing the murderer, is sheer lunacy.
No it’s not. They have acted outside of morality in so heinous a manner, that they need to be restored to it through losing their life. It’s the same as saying that some people can’t be rehabilitated. That’s true, regardless of what you believe.
you say you’re a devout atheist,
Once again, atheism is not a religion…I can’t be devout…let’s just say I’m an atheist. This has nothig to do with it, though.
TANK
OH…damn..I’m drunk. I meant that the sun was the center of our solar system…oy…when I get drunk, I get fourteenth century.
TANK
There’s no metaphysical price to pay; You kill someone and that person is dead, and if you get away with it and don’t care that is the end of the story.
I know you believe that murder is perfectly fine, but it’s not. Of course there’s no “metaphysical” price to pay as you understand the term, but it’s unethical to kill people maliciously….it’s wrong to do that, and we need more people to stand up to people like you.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
“acted outside of morality in so heinous a manner, that they need to be restored to it through losing their life.”
After you lose your life you’re dead. How does that restore you to morality? And if someone is a hardened, unrepentant murderer how does killing him bring him back into morality? He doesn’t regret the murder, he hasn’t changed his mind or made amends. He’s just dead and just as far outside of morality as he was when he was alive. It’s nonsense.
Did you let some of those Witnesses or Mormons into your house? You’re talking like you’ve been sneaking out to church on the sly.
TANK
@TANK:
And sorry, strumpet, but just because there’s no god to punish you for your wrong deeds doesn’t mean that people should overlook them. Got it? Just because there’s no god, doesn’t mean killing and raping is okay…you primitive fool.
TANK
After you lose your life you’re dead. How does that restore you to morality?
Okay, this has nothing to do with what I stated or what Kant stated so it’s okay to ignore.
And if someone is a hardened, unrepentant murderer how does killing him bring him back into morality?
They’re beyond repair. Taking their life is the same thing as fulfilling the contract they themselves agreed to.
He doesn’t regret the murder, he hasn’t changed his mind or made amends. He’s just dead and just as far outside of morality as he was when he was alive. It’s nonsense.
It’s not nonsense. It’s enforcing the social contract that letting him live would deteriorate. A contract is only as good as its enforcement. Even someone as stupid as you can understand that.
Sam
@Phoenix (You Know Which One): You said you’re not interested in vengeance or retribution, yet you suggest we should put people down like dogs. I can’t imagine anything more retributive.
Murder is murder, no matter who does it.
Kid A
Interestingly, Kant has little say in Omar Willock’s fate.