Character Analysis Of Steve Harmon In Monster By Walter Dean Myers

There was a lack of evidence to convict Steve guilty. Others have shown Steve's lack of guilt through their actions. On the night of the robbery and murder, there was no proven statement Steve was at the convenience store. He was caught up with the wrong people at the wrong time.

Throughout the book Steve shows signs of being scared. for example, when he is mopping the floor with his other inmates Steve starts feeling nausea looking at the rest of his inmates wearing the same suit he is wearing and doing the same activity as him. Steve’s biggest conflict in the story is himself. He starts feeling his self doubt

The court has both Steve and James King on trial and we the reader have to question ourselves based on evidence and hearings as to what the verdict should be for Steve Harmon. Steve Harmon should be found not guilty of felony murder. Throughout the book, Steve Harmon presents the reader with his personality and his moral values as a person, as seen through his actions and talking to

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.

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.

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.

Steve’s judgment of his actions is similar to a pendulum swinging. Although Steve believes within himself that he is innocent, of the important people around him, make him insecure as to the degree of his innocence and turn to others for confirmation. Steve Harmon, the defendant, is faced with an internal conflict that questions his self-identity and his character in relation to the crime.

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.

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

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 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.

His own son hasn’t seen him in years and he want to take out his anger on whoever he can, which just so happens to be the kid on trial. Juror Three’s feelings led him to be prejudice against the kid on trial. At the very end, he becomes visibly upset and give his final verdict, not

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.

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.

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.