Lopez 1

Doni Lopez

Mrs. Jurczyk

ECE 1011

October 23, 2016

Monster Final Essay

The Obstructions of Justice and Its Impact on Self Identity in Monster

The success of the United States judicial system depends on and demands the assumed

innocence of individual defendants (Myers 26). When a defendant loses his individuality and

becomes affiliated with a stereotyped group, the functionality of the judicial system is subject to

failure. Not only does it influence the court, but also what the defendant believes and sees in

themselves. This is precisely what happens in Walter Dean Myers Monster, where the narrator,

Steve Harmon, is affected by prejudicial factors that cause him to lose his individuality in court,

as well as lose his true self identity. Prejudicial factors in Monster play an influential role in the

direction of the trial, misguiding Steve Harmon and the court in terms of the the perception of

Steves character, and consequently, the verdict.

Steve Harmon is a young, Black individual whose race is an underlying and detrimental

factor in his image of innocence throughout the trial in Monster. Evidence of a racial issue can be

found in a conversation with Steve and his mother. During a prison visit Steves mother asks

Steve Do you think I should have got a Black lawyer? (145) which introduces the subject of

race in court. She the continues with some of the people in the neighborhood said I should have

contacted a Black lawyer (146), showing that it was more than one person that considered a

white lawyer as an issue. This indicates a deep rooted problem in which people assume others

character based simply off of race. This deep rooted problem can also be found the trial. Steves
 Lopez 2

race becomes the first identifying feature that the court sees before any information is given.

While Steves defense attorney, Kathy OBrien, is informing him on the opinions of the jury, she

tells him you were guilty the moment they laid eyes on you. Youre young, youre Black, and

youre on trial. What else do they need to know? (Myers 79). OBrien tells him the jury already

thinks hes guilty and states plainly the few things they know initially about Steve. This explains

why his race is a prejudicial factor in court, demonstrating how the jury forms an opinion on

Steves character, without being shown any evidence that he was guilty. OBrien also poses a

rhetorical question in the quote as if the verdict was obvious. She understands that people see a

black young man on trial, and use their color as evidence. This assumed guilt takes place because

social standards and his involuntary affiliation with the stereotyped group, blacks. He loses his

individuality during this affiliation because he is compared with those of his race and judged

accordingly, regardless of the lack of evidence. The role of race as a prejudicial factor in the trial

is destructive to Steves initial image of innocence, and misguides the jury in deciding whether or

not Steve is guilty.

The prosecutor in Steve Harmons case associates Steve with the hardened criminals who

are also on trial with him, misguiding the court and their interpretation of Steves character. It is

the prosecutors job to prove the defendant guilty of the crimes they are charged with, by any

means necessary. In Monster the prosecutor, Sandra Petrocelli, has very limited evidence to

connect Steve to the robbery and murder he is on trial for. However, she has the advantage of

two admitted participants in the crime, who are willing to testify against Steve. As a result of

little evidence against Steve Petrocelli resorts to less civil strategies. For Petrocelli this meant

bringing out all of these people and letting them look terrible on the stand and sound terrible

and then reminding the jury that they didnt look any different from me (Myers 60). This is an
 Lopez 3

excerpt from Steves journal and speaks of the criminals involved in the trial. Petrocelli puts the

guilty participants on the stand and allows them to testify. She questions them and makes sure

the jury knows that these two men are monsters. Steve believed that Petrocellis intention was to

associate him with the other men by their dark skin color to avoid having to provide any real

evidence. Once this initial relation is established, Steve is further connected to the other men

when he is questioned on the stand by Petrocelli. She asks Steve whether he would consider each

of the participants a friend or acquaintance, in which he responds to each an acquaintance.

Petrocelli then continues with the statement So youre acquainted with everyone involved in

this robbery (233), implying that he was one of them. Even though there was no real evidence

Steve had any relation with the other men or participated in the crime, Petrocelli was able to

create an image of Steve based off of the other mens guilt. Due to this, he loses his individuality

in the eyes of the jury, and shares the image of a criminal, not through proven involvement in the

crime, but through a fabricated relation between him and the other men. This prejudicial opinion

of the crime, is not founded on factual evidence and misguides the courts perspective on Steves

character.

The pressures of the trial misguide Steve Harmons view of his character, and eventually

the verdict. Steve finds his truth in what hes told, but it often contradicts what he believes.

Throughout the book Monster we see Steve deny any wrongdoing or reason to suffer as he did in

prison. He says I know that in my heart I am not a bad person (Myers 93). However, due to the

matter of his race and his affiliation with the other men in the trial, he begins to become

conflicted on whether or not he is a good person. He later says in his diary It was me who

wasnt sure. It was me who lay on the cot wondering if I was fooling myself (148), indicating

self doubt. Being referred to as a Monster also greatly influenced Steves perspective of himself.
 Lopez 4

During the trial he begins writing in his journal Monster, Monster, Monster (24) and OBrien

tells him You have to believe in yourself if were going to convince the jury youre innocent

(24) after she crosses the words out. He no longer knew if he was innocent and the pressures of

the trial and possibility of life in prison changed the direction of the trial. The outcome of the

trial is changed when Steven testifies in court. At first he writes in his journal I walked into a

drugstore to look for some mints, and then I walked out (140), proving that he was at the crime

scene. However, when he testifies in court and is asked if he was in the drugstore where the

crime took place, he responds with No, I was not (233). This was a key testimony in the jury's

decision to prosecute Steve Harmon. The prejudicial factors that misguided Steves view of self,

led to Steves false testimony in court, and the innocent verdict Steve received as a result.

The impact prejudicial factors prove to play an important role in the function of the

judicial system, influencing the view people have on the case. Obstructions of justice can be

found in Monster where social standards and uncivil prosecutor strategies influence the jurys

verdict both directly and indirectly. They skew the jurys perception of defendants character and

in Steves motivate him to lie in court. It is these obstructions of justice that are highlighted in

Monster that expose the flaws in the judicial system.

Word Count: 1276

Works Cited

Myers, Walter Dean, and Christopher Myers. Monster. New York, NY: HarperCollins,

1999. Print.