In his novel Monster, Walter Dean Myers demonstrates the complexity of the justice system, and how people can be tried unethically. The characters, Bobo Evans, Steve Harmon, James King, and Osvaldo Cruz all differ in magnitude of guilt and involvement, but were tried either too harsh, or let off too easily. What differs in each person’s case is attributed to biases including age, race, and cooperations with the police. The first poorly tried suspect in this felony-murder case was Osvaldo Cruz. Osvaldo is a fourteen year old boy who helped out in the robbery, but claimed it was in fear of the suspects that drove him to do this. Osvaldo gave tips to the police, helping them out with the crime. Due to this fact and his young age, he was not tried…
Steve always changes his story, telling the jury one thing but writing something else in his notebook. While on the stand, his lawyer begins to question him: “O’Brien: ‘Mr. Harmon, were you in the drugstore owned by Mr. Nesbitt, the victim, on the 22nd of December of last year?’ Steve: ‘No, I was not’”(223).…
In Walter Dean Myer’s novel Monster, a young, black 16 year-old, Steve Harmon is on trial for participating in a robbery and murder. Steve is innocent. Why? Ms. Petrocelli describes him as a monster. Why? She sees a young, black teenager. She stereotypes Steve. She assumes that he would commit the crime by his association with Bobo and James. To her he seems ready to confess. However, I see that Steve plays no part in the crime. He is not a “monster.”…
Monster presents its audience with a unique experience: they get to decide the fate of the main character by being presented with the facts, before the judge presents the final sentencing. It is a story of racism and class and how that affects the judicial system. The idea maybe innocent until proven guilty, but in many cases of African Americans on trial, the sentence is often decided before the trial begins. This conflict of race not only applies to the person on trial and the judicial courtroom, but can find itself with the lawyers that defend them. At the end of Monster, Steve Harmon’s lawyer, Kathy O’Brien, turns away from Steve after he has been found innocent of murder. We, as the readers, are never…
There is more evidence suggesting of Steve’s misconduct then of his innocence. Testimonies of other convicted criminals, Steve’s own thoughts and words, and his lawyer show strongly suggesting signs of Steve’s wrongdoing. Though he might not have been convicted, Steve Harmon is truly guilty of felony…
In the case of The State of New York vs. Steve Harmon the examination of flashbacks, journal entries, and tried testimony’s proves that Steve Harmon is guilty in the robbery and felony murder of Mr. Nesbitt. During the testimony of Sawicki, the prosecutor asks him if Steve attended film club on the afternoon of December 22nd Sawicki responds with, “No, he did not”. Steve not going to film club on the day of the robbery brings up suspicion, the Jury can imply that he goes to film club all the time and he just “happened” to not be there on the day of the robbery. The Unknown is where was he, that is the Jury’s decision on where he “was”. While Steve was in his cell, in his journal he writes, ”I thought about writing about what happened in the…
Throughout the novel, Steve struggles with the thought of himself as a monster. Most people around him think he is guilty, he starts out in court admitting to what he does but nobody believes him. If he was to have killed the clerk he would have admitted it. Nobody wants to believe him just because he is black and he starts to think is he really a monster. “Maybe I could make my own movie. I could write it down and play it in my head. I could block out the scenes like we did in school. The film will be the story of my life. no , not my life, but of this experience. I'll write it down in the notebook they let me keep. I'll call it what the lady who is the prosecutor called me MONSTER.” Before they even started the whole court scene the prosecutor was already calling him a monster. This scene shows what people really think of him and why he is questioning himself. “He has been found not guilty. Steve turn toward O’BRIEN as camera closes in and film grows grainer. STEVE spreads his arms to hug O’BRIEN, but she stiffens and turns to pick up her papers from the table before them.”(p,276) This scene shows how the lawyer thinks Steve is really a monster. By the lawyer not hugging him shows that the lawyer only won the case because it's her job not because she wanted, or even believed, Steve innocent. She bassically said “i'm not hugging you, you're a…
Criminals are tried in our court system everyday for crimes they are accused of committing. In these court cases, witnesses are called to give an account of what happened in the particular incident and then a jury of twelve members decides the criminal's ruling on the case. The jury does not listen to just one witness; it takes into account the stories of many witnesses in order to decipher the truth. "The Story of an Hour" by Kate Chopin and "Richard Cory" by Edwin Arlington Robinson show one cannot fully rely on what other people say in certain situations.…
The main character in the novel Monster by Walter Dean Myers is 16-year-old Steve Harmon who has been arrested and put on trial for his part in a robbery in which a convenience store owner was killed. A question that people can ask while reading this novel is, was Steve Harmon truly the lookout for the convenience story robbery or was he in the wrong place at the wrong time? Regardless, he has been arrested for his part in the crime that led to the killing of the store's owner. Through his journal writings and his movie scripts, complete with stage directions, Steve shares his story of his observations of what he sees and hears from his prison cell, and his fears as he is placed on trial and possibly facing 25 years to life in prison. During the novel there has been given pretty much all-different kinds of evidence.…
In order to accurately depict how the CSI Effect strongly influences our society’s view on crime and courtroom proceedings, I will be comparing different CSI episodes to those methods and theories which apply. Throughout the paper, I will be explaining how CSI has shaped peoples’ minds in believing false claims and investigation beliefs. Watching and comparing episodes of CSI to the CSI Effect will be a prime reference in explaining how the media is placing a spin on CSI television shows.…
How would you like to be on trial for something you didn’t do? In Monster, by Walter Dean Myers, Steve Harmon is on trial for felony murder. I believe that Steve Harmon is innocent because he didn’t know Bobo Evans, the store wasn’t clear, and there was no signal.…
Steve experiences an internal conflict regarding the way in which he wishes to be acknowledged. In chapter five, within Steve's journal, we see Steve experiencing this desire to be seen as a good person. "...What did I do? Anybody can walk into a drugstore and look around. Is that what I am on trial for? I didn't do nothing!..." (P. 115) Here he proclaims is innocence in his jorunal. In chapter three, Steve has to deal with some strong prejudicial stereotypes that may affect jurors. For example, O' Brien's words to him are "...You're young, you're black, and you're on trial. What else do they need to know?..." (P. 78-9). Here she is saying that the jury is pre-judging him before the case is over and nothing so far is evidence as to him being innocent. Steve's sense of his self-identity is further strained when he realizes that his father is no longer sure of who he is. When Steve asks his father if he believes that Steve did nothing wrong, the father is unable to give him the reassurance he…
Black people back then weren't treat right. Steve was accused of being the murder because he is black and any black person would do that. For example, the story says, “ Do you think I should have got a black lawyer?” she asked. “ Some of…
These practices of misconduct in result in dire consequences where an action of a single individual can destroy innocent individuals and further diminish public confidence in the justice system. For example, Collins & Jarvis (2009) found that the Innocence Project cited many cases where forensic scientist misconduct was a key player to the wrongful conviction. In the case of James Ochoa, even though DNA and fingerprint analysis exonerated Ochoa from the lists of suspects, the prosecutors were so convinced that he was guilty of armed robbery, that they had a forensic expert falsely testify in court on this case. Due to this, the testimony of the scientist was based solely on the interpretation and influence of the prosecutor. This argument relates to the idea of forensic testimony and the practice of fabricating or misreporting evide is a key issue that is posing a significant problem to our criminal justice system. These can include "withholding laboratory reports, analysis, or the existence of evidence. Other cases involved fabrication, including falsifying or altering lab reports and concealment of exculpatory information regarding hair comparison" (Garrett & Neufeld, 2009). For example, in William Gregory's case, a forensic analyst did not report crucial information of how at least one piece of hair did not match Gregory's. Additionally, it was determined that many cases…
The American justice system is one of the greatest aspects of the U.S. Constitution. The judicial branch insures that anyone in America receives a fair trial, that a nobody is incarcerated without due process and significant evidence, it assumes innocents until proven guilt, and protects the rights of citizens, victims, and the accused. The American justice system works most of the time, in that criminals normally go to jail while innocent people are set free; however, every system has its faults. Foremost, there is much debate over the concept of “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Many argue that courts do not always prove guilt or innocence, as in many people who are guilty of their crimes are not convicted because there was not enough evidence. The concept of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is subjective and left up to the standards of the jurors. In today’s society, if a case does not have physical evidence, but strong circumstantial evidence and eyewitness accounts (evidence that was often deemed enough to convict several decades ago), the jury still may not convict because they have the idea that their should be some type of physical evidence for the person to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Often times, the idea of true guilt is lost in trying to prove ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’…