I think that the author is subjective because of the way Steven was viewed when he was in court. When Steven was in court, I thought that he really shouldn’t have been there. I think that because he really didn’t do anything and he was accused of something he didn’t do. I thought this because he was with the gang but, he didn’t commit the murder. He was accused of it because he was with them at the wrong time in the wrong place and the witness Mrs. Henry saw his face and not the others.
In this story, Steve Harmon is a sixteen year old boy, on trial with his neighborhood acquaintance, James King, for the accusation of the robbery and murder of Alguinaldo Nesbitt. Before the trial began, other members of the gang, Bobo Evans and Osvaldo Cruz, admitted to being guilty. Steve Harmon, being the overachieving student and well rounded person that he is, was found innocent. Whereas the careless thug, James King, was found guilty. However, despite the final decisions of the
As seen in an entry he attempts to defend himself: “What did I do? I walked into a drugstore to look for some mints, and then I walked out”(140). As Steve attempts his defense, struggling with his innocence, he creates an excuse to save himself and to prove that he is innocent. However, he writes as if he knows he is guilty, but wants to cut himself some slack. Steve uses rhetorical questions to imply that he knows what he did wrong, but does not want to admit to the crime.
The film Shawshank Redemption is about a banker, Andy Dufresne, who is convicted of murdering his wife and her lover in cold blood. He is sentenced to two consecutive life sentences in the Shawshank State Penitentiary. Andy makes a mistake of trusting the criminal justice system and agrees to cooperate fully. Despite the evidence placing him at the scene of the crime on the night of the murders, Andy has always maintained his innocence. It is at this prison where he meets a fellow inmate, Red, who was convicted and sentenced to life for planning and carrying out his wife's murder.
He pleaded insanity, but they saw that he knew of wrong doing and they convicted him 15 costive life sentences. Jeffery adjusted to prison life easily, but he wasn’t aloud to be with other prisoners. He later convicted the officer to let him join the other prisoners. He got a job with two other prisoners. They're names where Jesse Anderson, a white supremacist and a convicted murderer.
Instead of being sent to a detention centre, his father locked him up in his house and now he is mentally unstable from the years of isolation. The mockingbird also has a compelling importance due to the connections with Boo Radley and Tom Robinson. Harper Lee uses juxtaposition to highlight the contrast of a black man and a white man facing racism and discrimination. However in this novel, one mockingbird is shot and the other is pressured to kill. A Mockingbird is considered for someone who displays innocence, kindness and does not want any recognition of the good deeds they do for others.
Therefore, not trying juveniles as adults will or possibly can lead them to committing other minor or major crimes. Two juveniles who have been tried as an adult would be Nathaniel Brazill who killed his teacher at the age of 13. Brazill got his GED and his law & paralegal certifications in jail. Similarly, Greg Ousley who killed his parents at the age of 14 is serving 60 years behind bars. According to Anderson, he is a model inmate, he is trustworthy behaving himself in prison and getting his education behind bars; got his bachelor's degree in liberal arts.
Twelve Angry Men “A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a nineteen years old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are weak include the one of a kind knife, the old men who heard the words “I’m going to kill you!” and the woman who is in question because of her glasses. Based on these, the boy is not guilty. 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.
Friday, Thomas Tarbutton, a 58 year old man from Newport Beach was sentenced to 34 years and four months in state prison for running a 3 million dollar Ponzi Scheme. He was found guilty by an Orange County Superior Court jury. Thomas had eighteen account of grand theft, nine accounts of forgery, and eleven counts of using an untrue statement in the purchase or sale of a security and one count of use of a device or scheme to defraud, which are all felonies. I think Thomas should be sent to jail even though he will not live long enough to do the full 34 years. I also think the people who he used for their money should be paid back their money.
“A person is innocent until proved guilty in a court of law” In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, an 18-year-old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence, the three that are in doubt are the old man hearing “I’m going to kill you!” as well as the weapon of choice and how it was replicated, and finally the woman’s testimony. In my opinion, the boy could have been proven guilty, based on these the boy is not guilty. One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is accuracy of the Old man’s testimony. In the play the jurors are arguing over whether or not the man heard the phrase “I’m going to kill you”.