Five Years?
Seriously!?!?
An emotionally troubled Milwaukee woman who drowned her infant son and attempted to commit suicide shortly after a La Causa caseworker left the child with her for an unsupervised visit was sentenced today to five years in prison.
According to court records, the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare was ordered not to leave the baby – 5-month-old Will Johnson – with his mother unless she was taking “all medication as described.”
Arkisha Johnson, 30, told several people that she was not taking her medication, according to a criminal complaint. She told at least one person that she lied to a caseworker about taking medication. Johnson became increasingly suicidal in the weeks before the Oct. 26, 2007, murder, family and friends told police. It is not clear what, if any, attempts Johnson’s caseworkers made to verify her claim about taking her medications before Will was left with her.
While I agree that the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare deserves some blame, that does not diminish the guilt of the mother. Five years for intentionally killing a person is not justice. It’s a travesty of justice.
Why are you surprised. I’m surprised the sentence was that long. Typical of this type of crime. Murder and abuse victims barely matter if they are children.
The defense of the abusers/murderers always plays some stupid sympathy ploy like how bad their lives were, they were under stress, they have to live with this for the rest of their lives, blah, blah, blah.
At least they still have lives.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2008 at 2029 hrs
How about we give her community service on the condition that she receive mental treatment and sign away parental rights on any children she might have in the future?
The woman was clearly unstable, and are we really keeping the world safer by paying for an extended incarceration? Sane people don’t kill their children, and crazy people are unlikely to be deterred by a harsh sentence given to another crazy person. And the woman, as best we know, has no record of violence towards others, so she’s not a threat to the community.
So what’s the point of locking her up long-term? To teach *her* a lesson? Do we even know that she’d be capable of understanding that lesson, or that the lesson would be remembered the next time she’s suicidal?
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 17, 2008 at 2036 hrs
Sheesh. The woman in Columbus, OH who cooked her baby in the microwave got 20 years. Should have stuck with the more ho-hum drowning method, she probably would have gotten off easier.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2008 at 2144 hrs
RS - sane people kill their children every day. As far as the “she was unstable” so she should get off with a stern scolding… see my post above. Thank you for making my point.
blah, blah, blah
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2008 at 2151 hrs
To further the point RS - how would you handle Casey Anthony?
Or on your sane people don’t kill and crazy people aren’t deterred theme… What should we do with someone who murders an adult? Like Dahmer for instance… Or is it just people that kill babies that should go free?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2008 at 2200 hrs
If the woman was mentally stable, sane, and fully aware of her actions, then yes, by all means, throw the book at her. The victim’s age is of no matter to me. I’d feel the same if the victim was 8 or 88. Why you would immediately choose to assume otherwise is beyond me.
If the woman was mentally unstable and not a threat to society as a whole (she has no track record of physical violence that I’m aware of other than this instance of familial violence), then what would we be accomplishing by throwing well in excess of a million dollars at a lifetime of incarceration? Clearly she’s unfit to be a mother - then let’s deal with that problem specifically and directly.
Sending her to jail forever isn’t going to deter anyone from killing their own children. Nobody’s at home thinking “wow, I was really on the fence about taking that axe to my five-year-old, but since Arkisha Johnson only got five years, I’ve got some choppin’ to do! Hi-ho!” Nobody. Nada. Zilch.
At that point, her incarceration is only effective so long as we have concerns about her reoffending. Ruling her unfit to be a parent is a lot cheaper than paying her room and board for 50 years.
To me, conservatives all too often view incarceration as the be all and end all of criminal justice. Let’s really address the problems. For those who are nuts, let’s put them in secure detention and deal with those issues. For those who are habitual offenders or likely to reoffend, perhaps jail is a good home for them. But these are matters that are best handled by judges and not ham-handed legislators with no experience in criminal justice who are just looking to score cheap points with constituents. Their “solutions” usually cost a lot of money and don’t make any of us appreciably safer.
As for Caylee Anthony, well, the poor kid is dead and that’s awful. But punishment doesn’t bring her back, so the only relevant questions are potential deterrence and the likelihood of the transgressor to reoffend. And that’s for a judge and jury to decide, and I’m fine with that.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 17, 2008 at 2314 hrs
RS - jail is a punishment and a deterrent. It shows people you have to pay for your actions. 5 years for killing somebody is a travesty. What difference does it make how old that person is?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2008 at 2324 hrs
It doesn’t matter how old anyone is. Perhaps you missed that where I said “The victim’s age is of no matter to me.” In case you were unclear, the perpetrator’s age also doesn’t matter to me. Nobody’s age matters to me.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 18, 2008 at 0049 hrs
I suppose whether or not the age of the victim matters is a value judgement. However, the age of the suspect is inconsequential - what matter is the ability to know.
Posted by Raymond E. Foster on December 18, 2008 at 0316 hrs
To me, conservatives all too often view incarceration as the be all and end all of criminal justice. Let’s really address the problems. For those who are nuts, let’s put them in secure detention and deal with those issues. For those who are habitual offenders or likely to reoffend, perhaps jail is a good home for them. But these are matters that are best handled by judges and not ham-handed legislators with no experience in criminal justice who are just looking to score cheap points with constituents. Their “solutions” usually cost a lot of money and don’t make any of us appreciably safer.
And somehow locking these people up in a mental institution and putting them on meds is going to make things all better.
RIGHT!
We have given the Judges and the DA’s WHO DO have experience in the criminal justice system the power. And what have they done with with it?
The Charge these people with with murder and then plead it down to reckless homicide, and give these “egg donors” 5 friggin years….for killing a child.
I for one could not care less that this egg donor had a rough childhood, or that she was mentally ill and not taking her meds the fact it she killed a child!
And for that 5 years is NOT punishment.
This is just further proof that a childs life ain’t worth squat in Milwaukee.
As if the Christopher Thomas case wasn’t enough.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on December 18, 2008 at 0826 hrs
Five years seems light, for sure. But I’m disgusted at the witch burning tone of some of the other comments here. Do any of you know what she was taking or why? There is such a thing as not guilty by reason of insanity—not that it applies to her, necessarily, but there are psychiatric diseases which cause a diminished or even completely absent sense of right and wrong. Such people do not always deserve to be thrown to the mercies of prison. A person guilty of a crime such as this should be punished in proportion to his or her actual culpability, not a predetermined level of severity designed for the majority of cases in which culpability is not in doubt.
I do not know exactly what her situation was and I have no idea if she’s any less morally culpable than the next murderer. I’m just saying that such cases do exist and it’s not unreasonable to ask if that might be the case here, given what is known about her health.
Carry on: Blah, blah, blah. Liberals coddling criminals. Yadda, yadda.
Posted by scott on December 18, 2008 at 0951 hrs
Unsaid in RS’s rant and Scott’s comment is the ability of any judge or jury or mental health professional to determine the likelihood of reoffense, of the ability of the person’s mental state to be controlled and of the willingness of the individual to perform the actions necessary to control their mental state when they are unsupervised. Those items are not in doubt when incarcerating a person.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2008 at 1010 hrs
Just to be clear: just because someone is, as I described above, ‘less morally culpable by reason of mental illness’ doesn’t mean that they should be free or left to their own care. On the contrary, a great many of them should never know freedom again. In that case, however, it’s more a matter of public safety than punishment.
I don’t know that I agree with your remarks to the effect that nobody can treat such illnesses or even understand a sufferer’s level of risk to others.
Posted by scott on December 18, 2008 at 1024 hrs
Notice how the article immediately describes the woman as “emotionally troubled?” I don’t appreciate it when news reporters (who are supposed to just report the news) editorialize throughout their reports.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2008 at 1042 hrs
You don’t think that’s a statement of fact given what is known about her psychiatric issues?
Posted by scott on December 18, 2008 at 1043 hrs
I didn’t say nobody can determine that, Scott. Only that we have to weigh the likelihood of any such determination to be accurate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2008 at 1058 hrs
Of course.
Posted by scott on December 18, 2008 at 1114 hrs
Hell, I’m surprised her sentence was that long. Couldn’t her lawyer find any “feminists” to testify that women are too weak mentally and emotionally to be expected to keep their own children alive, like Andrea Yates had?
...if a boyfriend or baby daddy or neighbor had done the killing, they’d be looking at 30 years. And none of you would be saying, “hey, it should only be five, because we don’t know if they’ll kill another baby later.”
Meanwhile, I don’t think charging the bureaucrat(s) who left an infant with an “emotionally disturbed” mother with manslaughter diminshes the mother’s culpability.Posted by HeatherRadish on December 18, 2008 at 1125 hrs
Certainly, it could be mentioned somewhere in the article that she has a history of “emotional problems” as a statement of fact.
But to immediately lead off and describe her as “emotionally troubled” is an effort, in my opinion, by the writer to quickly garner sympathy, and to a certain degree, create an excuse for her horrific action.
The use of descriptive adjectives by the reporter is not a fact, by my read. Save the editorials for the Editorial Board.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2008 at 1128 hrs
You’re reaching.
Posted by scott on December 18, 2008 at 1131 hrs
Where are all the ‘right to die’ folks around here? The woman obviously wanted to commit suicide. In addition to the jail cell they should give her a nice length of rope and some sharp razor blades to keep her company while she reflects on the kid she let drown. That could solve RS’s big concern about taxpayer money being used to keep her incarcerated. And the pro-death penalty crowd could see a fitting end to her actions.
As for Scott’s opinion: let’s review the “witch burning tone” comment. It implies that people were accusing her of a crime or activity that that was imaginary (like in the witch burning days). Just what exactly was imaginary about the dead kid? What was imaginary about nobody deeming her mentally unfit for trial? What was imaginary about her defense never proving that she was ‘not guilty’ by reason of mental disease or defect?
Scott, once again your ambiguity just exposes your cowardice. Search deep inside and drum up the courage to make a moral value judgment against someone (other than a Republican) for once in your life. None of us is perfect; but really, it’s ok to still expect a certain level of civilized and moral behavior out of people - and to publicly criticize and even punish them appropriately when they deviate. Try it sometime. When you look at the facts you might not feel like wishing her a harsh sentence is tantamount to making up charges against someone and putting them to death for it. There actually is somewhere in between those extremes where it is more appropriate in this case - and it’s certainly much longer than five years in prison.
Posted by David on December 18, 2008 at 1236 hrs
When you look at the facts you might not feel like wishing her a harsh sentence is tantamount to making up charges against someone and putting them to death for it
I don’t. It’s a figure of speech.
I already agree that five years is too lenient. I said so first thing.
Posted by scott on December 18, 2008 at 1243 hrs
Scott is right . . . and he did say 5 years was too lenient . . . there ARE people who fall in to a category of being mentally incapable of knowing right from wrong. But, you know what? Many of those people won’t get married, let alone have kids, or be unsupervised in general. We do what we can, as a society, to integrate those with mental problems in to society. As such, there are rules and laws, and punishments for when the laws are broken. A woman can’t be allowed to enter in to parenthood without knowing there are responsibilities for the child’s care. And consequences for whatever actions are taken . . . good and bad. Caylee is a great example of this. If the mom is found guilty of murder, she should be put away for a long time.
JJ is also right. One of the reasons sentences are often light is because of the age of the victim. Kids and babies have a raw deal in our society.
Posted by jimi on December 18, 2008 at 1354 hrs
Her emotional state or former psychological issues are not at issue here. She was deemed competent to stand trial and failed to prove mental disease or defect. That indicates she knew what she was doing was wrong. 5 years is a travesty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2008 at 1404 hrs
That’s a fair point.
Posted by scott on December 18, 2008 at 1412 hrs
I work in the criminal justice field for a living, and I agree, women (moms) who go nuts and kill their kids get very different treatments than men who do anything even remotely similar.
That’s not to say that they all get treated leniently, because some don’t. (Like the microwave mom perhaps.) But they usually do fare better than one would expect a man to fare for the exact same offense… sometimes much better.
In any case, though, I submit that punishment is a separate goal from either rehabilitation or deterrence. Those of us who work in the field and deal with criminals daily know that these are distinct goals of the criminal justice system. Sure, there’s a lot of overlap there, but sometimes people just need to sit their asses in time out - whether they’ve learned their lessons or not, and whether they are likely to commit similar offenses in the future. Actions need to have consequences. It may deter someone from doing it again to be sent to prison, sure; and it’s always nice to be able to “rehabilitate” people. But to make the blanket statement that if she’s not a threat and she was off her meds at the time, that she shouldn’t spend much time in prison because it will be costly - well, too bad.
Killing a kid - especially your own offspring, one who can’t yet defend himself and depends on you for protection - should be regarded by society as one of the more heinous acts of violence around. Me, I don’t really care if she has a “history of violence” and is likely to chase the neighbors with a shovel when she’s in a bad mood. I’ll concede that there are lots of people who are more of a “threat to society” than this woman probably is. So what? Society deserves to be able to send messages about what acts it will and won’t tolerate. She was apparently a hell of a threat to her child, and just because she has removed the victim of her potential recurring violence from the face of the earth doesn’t mean she deserves lenience! That reasoning would mean that if I finally kill my sworn enemy in cold blood, but I’ve otherwise always been a peaceful man and probably will be in the future (now that my enemy is dead), I shouldn’t be heavily punished.
Punishment is just that - punishment. It is its own goal sometimes. Prison is supposed to be unpleasant and lonely and isolated from the rest of society. Sending people there to punish them is often legitimate. It protects us from criminals, yes, but it also expresses our discontent with their actions in a way that “community service” cannot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2008 at 1658 hrs
That is a good point JJ, but going back to RS’s point, so what? What would be accomplished by sentencing an unstable, but not technically insane woman to life in prison? It’s not going to deter other mentally unstable people from killing their kids. It’s not going to keep the community safe from this individual because it appears she’s not a real threat to the community. And it’s certainly not going to help her get better.
The answer is retribution. Personally, I don’t think spending millions of dollars in the name of punishment for punishment’s sake is a good way to approach criminal justice. I do agree that 5 years sounds slim on its face, but I don’t know if 10, or 20, or 50 would make me feel any better.
Dahmer, just by the nature of his crimes, was a definite, ongoing threat to the community. If he’s not found insane, then lock him up until the wolves kill him, which is exactly what happened. That Caylee Florida woman, obviously a pre-meditated plan, from the little I’ve read of that morbid case she was on the internet before hand, then intricately lying afterward, so she does not fall into the same catagory as Arkisha Johnson either. Lock her up for first degree premeditated intentional and she’ll probably catch one too.
But the point is, in realtively unique and rare cases like this involving, at the very least, an incredibly unstable person, you can dance around the issue all day trying to justify it, but all you really want from a long sentence is revenge. That’s also why the age of the victim is at all relevant to a lot of your views on her sentence. Revenge for a baby that never got a chance. And I’m not even saying you’re wrong. Just saying that’s not how all of us think.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2008 at 1710 hrs
And again Jason proves my point. Dave says it pretty eloquently. Murder deserves punishment. What kind of message do we send with a 5 year sentence? Other than “Hey, kill your kid, get 5 years…. its better than a lifetime with them” Arkisha will get out in plenty of time to have more kids that she’ll have the opportunity to kill, and in five years, there will be nothing to stop her. At least a 20 year sentence would get her close to the end of her child-bearing years.
How many Christopher’s and his sister, or shaken babies like little girl in Allenton, or Arkisha Johnson’s, or microwaved babies, or babies found in bathroom garbage cans, or public toilets, or dumpsters even though we have safe haven’s, or the countless others in WI and this country are we willing to tolerate?
Evidently Jason is willing to tolerate a lot of them. I’m not.
It amazes me that the liberals generally love to throw “the least of those” statements around, but when it comes to actually protecting and saving kids and babies then they can’t quite get the rubber to hit to road. If kids and babies don’t qualify, then nobody does and the words become just words that ring hollow.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 18, 2008 at 1938 hrs
There are two points I think a few have tried to make. One, for murder, this is a light sentence. If she’s that mentally unstable as to take the life of her child, I don’t know that it can be safely said . . . at all . . . that she’s not a threat to anyone else. I wouldn’t want her living next to me. Perhaps she’ll adjust better to prison life. You keep harping on the cost of incarceration. Yes, jails and prisons costs money. So what? Of all the places my money goes, prisons are the least objectionable to me. They serve the purpose of housing those who break laws. It’s called a punishment. I’m sure no one will claim that prisons rehabilitate, or that all that are locked up are there to keep the rest of society safe. That’s part of it, not not all of it.
The second point is that the crimes committed against children are often met with light sentences. Just in general. Maybe that’s not true, but it seems like it. I agree with JJ, I can’t tolerate that kind of behavior. No one is justifying anything. If anything, excuses are being made for this woman and it’s her light sentence that’s being “justified”.
Unfortunately, many judges think the way Jason does.
Posted by jimi on December 19, 2008 at 0004 hrs
Who are you sending your message to JJ? Other crazy people? It’s pretty obvious that there’s no deterent effect in the world powerful enough to stop an insane person from doing something insane. So what you’re really arguing for is revenge. Message recieved loud and clear.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 19, 2008 at 1231 hrs
There are lots of “unstable” people out there. Very few of them kill people - and yes, a baby is a person.
Bleeding heart Jason is missing the point. She isn’t crazy. She was deemed fit to stand trial and did not prove mental disease or defect. She knew what she was doing was wrong. So my message to those like her is - if you kill your baby, you will go to prison for a long time. If you don’t want your baby, there are millions of loving homes that would gladly take them, so murdering them is not a viable option for disposal. Is that clearer for you? I weep for the dead child, not for the murderer. Evidently to Jason, he weeps for the murderer and seems that the dead baby was just an unfortunate incident.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 19, 2008 at 1317 hrs
Hey, drama queen, if you can stop dreaming about all the cute, precious little babies and find a way to discuss this without pejoratives and name-calling, let me know, and we can continue the conversation.
Also lose the strawman BS about me hating babies, and you bravely defending them. It’s just ridiculous self-gratification and it makes it impossible to take you seriously.
Reasonable minds can differ on whether sentences in cases like this are deterent, rehabilitative, or retributionist. You do not seem to have one of those minds, so I’m done with you. This bleeding heart is gonna go kick some babies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 19, 2008 at 1619 hrs
Total Entries: 19654
Total Comments: 129829
Most Recent Entry: 02/10/2012 02:32 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 12:30 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 129
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 12:43 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).