Monster Conflict Essay: Innocence Vs. Guilt

Many people today get involved with the wrong people, as a result, many people are wrongly accused and incarcerated for crimes they didn’t commit. In the book MONSTER, there is a witness named Steve, who is on trial for the murder of a drugstore owner. Steve was the lookout in the robbery, however, he was not responsible for Mr. Nesbitt’s death. First of all, Steve was the lookout because he planned the robbery with James King.

Steve’s lawyer, Miss O’Brien, must prove Steve’s innocence to a biased jury so that Steve will not have to have his whole life ruined. Because Steve is a black juvenile on trial for felony murder and even though is innocent, Steve and his lawyer must prove him innocent in the

Steve is surrounded by government officials watching his every move . The judge, a jurist awaiting the sentencing, stares at the two men on trial. Steve can’t help but label himself as what everyone is saying, he thinks he’s a monster. Walter Dean Myers writes “ Cut to: Steve Harmon. Then CU of the pad in front of him.

I believe that Steve Harmon is innocent. There are many reasons to believe this. For one “bobo” Evans placed him at the crime scene but Mr. Evans and Mr. King according to Mr. Evans testimony were on drugs. So Steve Harmon could have just happened to be their. Since both Mr. Evans and Mr. King were on drugs i don’t believe that their statements are valid.

The book ended ambiguously and left the reader to question whether or not Steve was truly innocent. Because of the numerous questionable scenes/parts in the novel, I believe that Steve Harmon is guilty of being a participant in the crime that led to death of Mr. Nesbitt. Would a man who was innocent continuously change his story? Steve’s statements regarding his whereabouts and what he was doing on the day of the murder is inconsistent. Steve stated that he just went inside

At this point he is having troubles deciding who is at fault. With the failure to examine every little detail, it seems he committed the crime. He doesn’t want to bring out important details because it could cause him to get into

Before the trial, Steve is already scared of what the outcome is and how he might spend his whole life in jail and starts doubting his chances of being found not guilty. During the trial, Steve starts hearing the things the prosecutor is saying and sees the people who are testifying against him, which is already not putting him in a good state of mind, and this combines with him seeing his father who looks very scared of Steve, and this all gives Steve disappointment. After the trial, Steve is found not guilty and gets to return home and we next hear from him five months later where we see his father had left him and that Steve doesn’t even know who he is, which shows that he feels damaged. With all of this in mind, we can see that Steve, a dark-skinned, sixteen-year-old boy, has gone through a change from being afraid to feeling lost with himself through doubt, disappointment, and damage. Image how other people feel in

Steven Harmon, he is the protagonist of Monster. The novel starts off with Steve writing about the best time to cry and all of this stuff he is experiencing. He is a 16 year old African-American on trial for the murder of a drug store owner. He acts nervous in the courtroom when the antagonist of the novel, Bobo King gives him a dirty look. King is the other young man who is accused of taking part of the crime.

The court system, the only thing keeping Steve from his parents, his brother, it will be the deciding factor if whether Steve goes to or stays out of Jail in the novel Monster written by Walter Dean Myers. Steve Harmon is a 16 year old boy that we get to learn about through the numerous journal entries and his script of his journey throughout jail and court. He is suspected in court for being an alleged suspect along with James King. Throughout the book we learn about the inside of Harmon and what he tells us about what he did, and where he was during the crime but we never get to know the truth about it he really committed the crime which proves the theme. Ones true actions can never be revealed.

Steve was a monster because he lied. He was giving his testimony in court. The book said, “‘I don’t know exactly when the robbery happened, but I know I wasn’t in the drugstore that day.’” (Myers 229).

He didn’t know whether he was guilty or innocent, he also was lying while it was his testimony. In the novel, Monster, by Walter Dean Myers, Steve Harmon was a monster because he lied and because he knew about the robbery. Steve was a monster because he lied. Steve was talking in a flashback.

Calling someone a monster is very ignominious and can hurt and can demote a person’s feelings. Steve Harmon was an innocent teenager. But he is not; he is a monster in the novel by Walter Dean Myers called Monster. Steve is called monster several times. His family and his lawyer don’t even know who he is anymore.

The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar

The emotional struggles prove that he wants to believe Steve is not guilty, but struggles to do so. Moreover, his father finds it difficult to remain optimistic during the proceedings. As Steve and his father continue to talk, Steve searches for the look of “reassurance he has always seen” in his father 's face (Myers 112). His father lacks the look of reassurance because he cannot seem to understand how his son remains in jail for accused murder. Steve’s parents still feel apprehensive if their son is trustworthy.

Reasonable doubt proves that critical thinking is important when someone’s life is in someone else’s hands. “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, is a play about twelve jury members who must deliberate and decide the fate of a man who is accused of murdering his father. These twelve men must unanimously agree on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty without reasonable doubt. Just like the jurors, the readers of this play have not witnessed the crime that took place before the trial started. Everyone, but the writer, is in the dark about who committed the crime.