Dear Steve Harmon , I hope you’re doing well Mr.Harmon , I know you have been through a whole lot of things you would’ve wanted to go through . Now I understand , why people kill and murder others not everyone does it, people have a reason why. But I do believe you are innocent since you are a young boy, of course you’d be nervous or scared. O’Brien gave several reasons why you should come out
In the novel Monster by Walter Dean Myers the young main character Steve Harmen who grew up in Harlem, got caught with some bad people and is on trial for murder. Ms. O’Brien and Ms Petrocelli’s final statement during the trial of Steve Harmon and James King for the murder of Alguinanado Nesbitt, helped me come to the conclusion that Steve Harmen is innocent. I came to this conclusion because he never agreed to be the lookout, he never gave a signal, and never received any money. He was not with them at their chicken meet and greet after the robbery, The witness never saw Steve inside the store, Steve also said he was in there to buy mints. When he was on stand he then said he was never in the store.
Just because they are guilty doesn't mean they can't be a Monster. In the book Monster by Walter Dean Myers, Steve Harmon, a 16 year old, is on trial for felony murder. Based on the evidence given, Steve Harmon is not guilty as shown through testimonies, journals and flashbacks. During Steve's trial, Lorelle Henry, the librarian, testifies and proves Steve Harmons innocence. She testified that King was in Nesbitts Drug Store
He admits on camera that there was a sexual relationship between him and Susan. Steve wrote songs about her, would try and record her, or take pictures of her, and said he was very aroused by her presence. He would save personal items used by Susan and take things of hers that could be considered revolting. Although, it was recorded that Susan had no interest in him and wanted him to stop. Steve was eventually investigated and convicted of child pornography.
In the play Twelve Angry Men there was a man prosecuted with the stabbing his father at the chest. 12 Jurors had to decide if the boy was guilty or not, I would say he is not guilty for two main reasons. First a quote in the book stated “I think it’s logical to say that she was not wearing her eye glasses to bed, and I don’t think she put them on to casually look out the window” (page 61). This quote shows that the witness from the plaintiff could not have seen the crime happen without her glasses on. My last reasoning on why I think the boys not guilty is because Juror 5 said “ who’s ever used a switch blade befor would never stab the knife downward” (page 56).
Steve Harmons actions depicted his characteristics and we can, therefore, conclude that Steve Harmon is a liar as he lied under oath. Steve was also a guilt-ridden man ashamed of his actions. People who disagree may claim that Steve was undoubtedly innocent as Lorelle Henry, a witness, declared that there were only 2 people, proven to be James King and Bobo Evans, inside the store who eventually murdered Mr.Nesbitt. This may be a strong argument because it shows that Steve was not in the drugstore and could be really innocent. On the contrary, however, Steve’s job was just supposed to be a lookout and ensure that the drugstore was clear of cops or anyone inside.
His wording shows that he doesn’t know who he is and therefore believes he is a Monster as Ms. Petrocelli calls him. He accepts people’s judgments as his self-truth. Even though, he, himself, accepts the worst he still wants people to perceive him as a good person, especially his mom. Steve’s mom’s words cut deeper in him because his mom believes he didn’t do it while he knows he did. 5 days into the trial, his mother comes by and talks to him hoping to make him feel better, “I could still feel Mama’s pain.
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.
As Steve progresses through the trial, he starts getting disappointed about what the people are testifying. We can see this when he says, “I think they are bringing out all of these people and letting them look terrible on the stand and sound terrible and then reminding the jury that they don’t look any different from me and King”(Myers 60). While the trial is going on, Steve sees a couple of witnesses, and immediately falls in disappointment. He starts to make assumptions about bad things that might happen to him before the trial is even halfway. This shows how he is already feeling disappointed that he will lose.
His prejudice is clear when he says that “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say” when speaking about the boy (16). Juror Ten’s prejudice causes him to disregard all of the facts that are presented to him by Juror Eight that can prove that the accused is not guilty. Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors.
One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is the uncommon kind of knife. The testimony said that it was one of a kind knife, while juror number eight brought the exact same one in a local pawn shop proving that the knife wasn’t that rare. In addition to the not uncommon knife, we also have
The movie begins in the humid jury room by taking a vote to see whether or not the boy is guilty: eleven guilties and one not guilty. At this point Mr. Davis (the only not guilty vote) could have easily switched his vote and sentenced the boy to death, however he did not. This is where some men get aggravated. This film shows the many ways the men try to persuade one another to change their vote through the characters of Mr. Davis (Juror 8), Juror 4, and Mr. McCardle (Juror 9).
He fills in an X and hands the pencil to NO. 12.” (12 Angry Men). He thinks the only pieces of evidence are the witnesses because they said they saw the killing even though there was flaws within their testimony. After further investigation, he agrees the boy is not guilty. Then, juror number three persuades number twelve
No. 8: Yes, I do… [sighing and shaking head slowly] It was hard and some of the jurors were just hard headed, we were starting to think that we were a hung jury but in the end, we came to a unanimous conclusion that the boy is not guilty. Interviewer: One last thing, do you have any problems or opinions with today’s jury system?