The Worst Crime

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.

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.

I was surprised by the low reviews. I think this gave a great overview for everyone involved when it comes to the death penalty of a single case.....family members of the victim and accused, doctors, lawyers from both sides, case workers, jury member.

The movie does not settle on one narrative. But it does provide great insight into all view points of the death penalty. However, It does not try to sway its audience to reach a final decision. It's was wonderfully produced and wonderfully directed.

The movie left me feeling empathy for all people involved in a violent crime, and I just don't mean the victims and their families. I mean all people who are touched my violent crime.

I was surprised they sort of glossed over the crime and then started bending toward sympathy for the perp without yet broaching the fact that he had already been diagnosed with schizophrenia and had been using meth -- a known danger combo. In fact 20 minutes in, they still hadn't made it clear that he did the crime nor what the evidence was. But very shortly it does become clear that whether he committed the crime is not in question. The show opens up with the comment that one of the jurors asked is there a worst crime and if not we should give him the worst penalty. As someone in the legal field I disagree that's the way to determine the punishment. Yes, ill people can appear innocent to family and bleeding hearts but that just gives then more leeway to commit unforgivable acts. His caretakers were just as much at fault. That being said, he does not belong out in society because he's proven he will not stay on his meds, if nothing else. Guilty by reason of insanity is a misunderstood term, thanks to the media. It really is just a way to ensure the person receives treatment while incarcerated -- not with the goal of being cured and released. Adults with schizophrenia have the mental self control of a child without the usual sense of right and wrong. He should have already been in a facility and this would not have happened. But Death is a misunderstood penalty - it was first used to rid society of the murderer, not to deter others nor punish the convict. Will we ever be a society who wants to house and rehabilitate evil rather than rid ourselves of the threat? I doubt it. But some cases are not that black and white. If someone killed my child, I personally wouldn't want them to have the freedom of escaping their miserable life through death. Western society puts too much idolization on life and thinks of death as something horrifying. Really, we might be in hell right now. Many ancient societies view death as moving on, not some final act. But I digress. The presentation here is slow and there's a lot of talking by the family and experts etc that is hard to sit through. It feels like a film hoping to spotlight the idea that death penalty is wrong. Luckily, we all get to vote for officials per state and are not imprisoned by the screaming of bleeding hearts -- yet (Let's go Brandon).

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.