The Worst Crime

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 had some years as a forensic psychiatric evaluator, determining if accused defendants were competent by legal standards to face trial for their offences or crimes. Several of those were notorious homicides/murders. The scenes with the family of this guy are surreal. They seem so surprised that the community was absolutely appalled by this crime. And then came the forgiveness scenes. Harder to watch. Yes. It seems clear the killer was and is mentally ill. Being mentally ill is not a pass. It is not an excuse. It is tragic and it is dangerous. Such terrible crimes as that shown here cannot be forgiven. While severe it was important that the state brought all of its wrath on this guy. A wounded animal is more dangerous than a rested one. Juding by the level of actual consciousness, or rather the lack thereof, of his family...well they seemed generally clueless and also appear to have had little or no resources to cope with this person...but it also looks honestly that they did not try very hard at all. We can pity the circumstances that damaged this boy but any talk of forgiveness or less than full accountability should be out of the question.

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.

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.

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.