Character Analysis Of Steve Harmon In Monster By Walter Dean Myers

Steve’s mother’s insight into the crime makes Steve feels as if he is innocent. Ordinarily, he is relying on others’ to see where he stands in the crime and if he is innocent or not. In this case, he is

“When I don’t like the answers, I’ll turn it upside down. You figure out what’s wrong with the answer you gave me” (218). Steve and O’Brien had went over what he was going to say prior to the court session, but if he was innocent there would be nothing to worry about. Steve also had flashbacks that the jury doesn’t know about, including where he talks to King about needing money and wanting to rob a bank (50). The jury has no idea that the conversation had happened so they did not have enough information to deliver a verdict of guilty.

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

When asked why he voted not guilty, juror eight stated “Look, this boy has been kicked around all his life. You know---living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. He spent a year in and a half in an orphanage while his father served a jail term for forgery. That’s not a very good head start. He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years.

Many of the jurors use logos, logic and reasoning, to lay out the evidence in a rational and concrete manner to convince him. An example is when 4th Juror lays out all of the evidence of the knife to convince 8th Juror with seven, linear, factual points. The reader and audience is meant to connect a sense of ethos, reliability or competence, to 8th Juror, as he is the only one who doesn’t, at first, seem to be clouded by ignorance, racism, disinterest, or any other characteristic that might cloud

This man may be a bit timid in part due to his old age, but his quiet nature also makes him insightful, noticing very specific details about witnesses that many others on the jury missed. He seems to come off as the most respectable and well mannered man out of the twelve. He 's the first to change his vote to not guilty, mostly to give Juror 8 a chance to make his case and out of respect for his motives in gambling for support. In talking about the older man that gave testimony it 's almost as though he 's talking about himself, revealing that he wants to be useful and to do something valuable, even if it 's just this once as a juror. As you may have noticed out of all the twelve men in the movie, each and everyone of them has unique personalities, that all at one point throughout the trial, played a very effective role in deciding this boy 's fate.

Steve wants to be in hiding and be divulged in his identity. Alex made clear for everyone who watches his documentary, that Steve’s life would never be the same until the media and fans apologized for what they did to Steve. There is a quote in the documentary stated by Alex Gibney, “There were a lot of fans that were being pretty unfair

Based on the evidence gathered from the case everyone agrees the boy is innocent except one man, juror three. He eventually breaks down and consequently tells the truth. The viewers can tell that this movie/play is full of emotions. Each of these emotions can be described as something more than what comes to the eye.

And you know why, because he's been hit on the head by somebody once a day, every day. He's had a pretty miserable eighteen years. I just think we owe him a few words, that's all” – This clearly gives a reference to the fallacy of “Appeal to pity”. Time and again, he uses this fallacy so that other jurors could empathize and connect with the boy. 2) “

The main priority is to discuss the defendant’s innocence or guilt. By keeping the subject of discussion on the boy, Juror Eight, has an easier time convincing the rest of the jury that he is not guilty of the murder of his father. Juror Three, the main antagonist of Twelve Angry Men, doesn’t possess the perseverance that Juror Eight does. Juror Three doesn’t have a reasonable cause, which in turn weakens his argument. His bottled up emotions over his son become a problem later in the play when

Juror number eight believed that he is young and everyone makes mistakes. Juror number six had started to change his mind because he started to play out the whole thing, he played out everything the woman had testified. From this, it changed everything. It changed many people's opinion specifically the jurors

In 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.

He displays the tendency of an introverted Pragmatist with the Thinker preferences. Therefore, it takes him very long and requires several opinions laid out by other Jurors to change his mind from ‘guilty’ to ‘not guilty’. At the same time, he was firm and unafraid to stand up for himself once he changed his vote. He is sympathetic towards the boy as he grew up in the slum himself which caused him to disagree with Juror 3 numerous time. Therefore, his own upbringing in the slum makes him more knowledgeable about how the boy could have handled the switchblades and also the traits of living in the slum in

People who make very poor decisions or are not very “street” smart as some people say have the potential to be making a decision that regards the rest of your life, which in many cases is very scary to the person on trial. In the play “Twelve Angry Men” juror 7 did not care at all whether he was found guilty or innocent. “ I’m a little sick of this whole thing already. We’re getting nowhere fast. Let’s break it up and go home.

Throughout the whole play, Juror Ten remains stubborn in his decision that the defendant is guilty. Yet, at the end the finally sees that there is reasonable doubt (62). Interestingly enough, on the previous page Juror Ten is called out by Juror Four (60). The foreman also has some prejudice at the beginning of the case. He brings up another case that is similar to the one they are doing.