The Worst Crime

I took 4 yrs of psych, my Ex suffered from mental illness and I'm a mother. I've always been torn about the death penalty, & that the courts, police, etc make drastic mistakes. However in a death penalty argument at first the documentary kept my attention & ppl the interviewed majority made some good arguments. However in this case, I believe the jurors got it right, there is evil that is obvious in others and evil the worst that is disguised so well fam members are in shock so seek for answers bc he was always such a "good guy" expression of wolf in sheep's clothing. I was in awe of the dignity yet pain displayed by the TRUE VICTIM fam, & I don't believe Johnny Johnson fell through the cracks. I believed he found the cracks & used opportunities people w/o mental disease wouldn't think of. If you want compassion for mental disease, you have a responsibility to acknowledge it properly and take care of it. But he chose meth, and murder. Prob first documentary about the death penalty, it took a while through it that I believed it was warranted. The world feels some type of need to deflect accountability, to me perfect example. Vry sad example, but Casey is the only true victim & she didn't get to have jurors decide her fate. Only 1 man took that upon himself. Mental disease does need to be a priority but it's not to be a get out of jail card. Patients know they have a disease & take responsibility to help themselves as I did w cancer.

I attended a screening of Through the Cracks (alternate title to The Worst Crime) yesterday at the St. Louis International Film Festival. The documentary is less about the case against Johnny Johnson, who no one denies committed the crime, but about his culpability. Johnson had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been struggling with his medications, and, the previous month, had been dropped by his court-ordered mental healthcare provider because the powers that be wanted him arrested for violating the terms of his parole. He WAS arrested, in only about a month: for the attempted rape and brutal murder of a 6-year-old girl with whose family he had been staying... after hearing voices telling him to do so. Does Johnson deserve the greatest penalty for the greatest crime? Does he deserve to die? This is the question of this documentary.

Biased for the killer, not the victim. He stopped his medications, stopped his appointments. He admitted to planning to have sex with her and kill her.

Mental illness or not, he knew what he was doing. I thought his family members were so fake. I feel said for him, but he did it.

About halfway through the sympathy all seemed to be for him, not for the victim's family. Wish I had never watched it.

He went off his medications and was taking, of all things, meth. His decision. He is guilty.

So we don't understand what he was going through, but they don't understand what the victim's family was going through and really didn't seem to care about them. Horrible mjovie.

Like the title says, I'm not a supporter. That being said, that may have been the "best" choice for Johnny Johnson. On death row he is isolated, sure. But in a life sentence he may have been put into general population. Not a good place for people who've done what Johnny did! He would have most likely been beaten and/or tortured. I think the death penalty probably gave him a more peaceful life than he would have had otherwise. In fact, probably a longer life!

I think back to Jeffrey Dahmer. He was supposed to be protected in prison. Suddenly the guard leaves him alone for a few minutes and inmates come in and beat him to death. Johnny might have met a similar fate.

Unfortunately, I think that audience attracted to this film, those looking for a "good" true crime story, want something that this film is decidedly and deliberately not. The film bucks the trend of assumptions behind similar content. It doesn't wrap things up into a morality tale about the good and bad guys in our society, with bad being punished and good prevailing. It also doesn't automatically assume that a person deserves death for a crime, even a very bad one, and it also doesn't assume that a society seeking satisfying vengeance against individuals is a healthy one. In fact, the film goes out of its way to not satisfy what many watchers want satisfied by a crime story - namely, a parallel form of blood lust to the killer's own violence, fulfilled by seeing the murderer brought to justice and punished.

Yet, to criticize the film for withholding judgement, not sufficiently chastising the killer or (as another review put it) being a "bleeding heart," fundamentally misrepresents what the film is about. This movie is not even really about a crime. It's about a crime's impact on a community. It provides a thoughtful look at the meaning and consequences of the death penalty in a local region, through the voices of the prosecutors, defenders, politicians, media, and families involved. It's not the film you wanted, but it may be the film that you need, providing the space to rethink your own bedrock assumptions, whatever they may be, about our world and how we deal with wrong.