In the world today, there are many people who make bad decisions. For example, talking to a friend when the teacher is teaching, drinking soda before playing a instrument, or even forgetting to eat breakfast. One must understand that for every action there are consequences, some worse than others. In the book ‘Monster’ Steve Harmon was indeed the lookout for the robbery, but was not responsible for the murder of Mr. Nisbet (the store owner). How is this so apparent? While reading the book there are several clues as to why Steve was the lookout but not the murderer. For example there’s a scene where Steve is talking to James King about being the lookout, a scene where he lies under oath, and he was at the scene of the crime just before it went …show more content…
Where James King said to Steve on page 150,“ All I need is a lookout. You know, check the place out-make sure ain’t no badges copping some z’s in the back. You down for it?” . Although Steve never gave a straightforward answer it is implied he gave it some thought, based off the close up of Steve looking away. Steve had most likely agreed to this job because he had wanted to be part of the group.
Secondly Steve had lied under oath when asked if he was in the store that day. This comes up only after the reader reads a little further into the book. In one of Steve’s journal entries on page 40 he says, “I went in to get some gum” . This means that he had lied when he was asked if he was in the store the day the robbery took place. Proving that Steve was guilty at least for contempt of court if not the robbery.
Following up Steve was at the scene of the crime right before it went down.During bobos’ testimony he is asked what him and King had been doing prior to the robbery. He responded on page 196“waiting for him to come out” . Then when asked who he was referring to, Bobo proceeded to point at Steve Harmon. Meaning that Steve was at the scene of the
When a crime is committed, the blame is usually placed on the criminal. This is because a crime cannot take place without a criminal. However, a lawbreaker generally has reasons for his misdeed. For a crime to occur, a criminal must have incentive. Consequently, the causes of a wrongdoer’s motivation are also responsible for the offence. In addition, crimes can be avoided if the proper precautionary measures are taken. Therefore, anyone who could have stopped a crime from happening is partially accountable for it. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, a creature created by Victor Frankenstein kills several of Victor’s loved ones. These murders could be blamed on the creature, but he is not solely responsible for them. The root cause of the murders is Victor’s secrecy. His concealment causes his obsession, a lack of preventative measures against the creature, and his fear of appearing to be mad.
Growing up in a world of gangs, death, and suffering Kody Scott, also known as Monster Kody, grew up in a life of struggle. From eleven years old Kody knew what he wanted a to be, a gangster. Nothing could stop him from becoming one of the most feared gang member of the late 1970?s and early 80?s except maybe his own conscience. Kody Scott goes through an evolution, from a child to Monster Kody to finally Sanyika Shakur, his Muslim name. Sanyika Shakur is a true survivor, considering everything that has taken place in his life he has managed to make something of himself from nothing.
Monster is an example of what Patty Campbell would call a “landmark book.” Texts such as these “encourage readers to interact with the text and with one another by employing a variety of devices, among them ambiguity” (Campbell 1) Because it is told through the eyes of Steve himself, the plot can be difficult to decipher. It is ambiguous whether he is innocent or guilty of being involved with the crime. Steve learned to make things unpredictable from his film teacher Mr. Sawicki who teaches him, “If you make your film predictable, they’ll make up their minds about it long before it’s over” (19). Steve took his teacher’s advice and made this film script entirely unpredictable, even after it is over. His lawyer, O’Brien, says in her closing statement, “What can we trace as to the guilt or innocence of my client, Steve Harmon?” (245) This leaves the jury with an undoubtedly difficult decision, as well as the reader, because there are clues to both guilt and innocence in Steve’s case.
At the beginning of the novel, Steve is only mentioned very rarely. At first it was thought that Daniel’s father was no longer apart of his life. Chapter four was an insider of Steve’s continuous grumpy attitude and dishonesty. After work, instead of spending time with his wife and children, Steve would lock himself in his shed, and refuse to come out for dinner. Daniel, one of Steve’s three children, would often have to distract Toby, the youngest child, from Steve’s grumpy attitude. An example of a distraction from the book, was when Daniel encourages Toby to “go get the eggs” (pg. 21) when Steve wad in his usual grumpy mood after work.
John smith, the accused, stood up in the courtroom and started yelling at the judge about what he thought of his innocence irrespective of the decision that the judge would make. He also cursed the prosecutor and kept quiet when his lawyer warned him of the negative consequences that would follow if he continued with the same behavior. Smith did not answer any question that the judge asked him. The prosecutor indicated that he had observed similar behavior when he interviewed him, in jail.
The play God of Carnage by Yasmina Reza begins with a simple set-up, four parents from different social classes coming together to discuss a dispute between their sons. As the play continues we see the characters slowly becoming less polite and civil as they start yelling at each other, getting piss drunk, and everyone’s favourite, vomiting. Throughout the play these characters are constantly being tested and judged. When Veronica and Michael attempt to show off their material possessions to the Raleighs they are given a metaphorical slap to the face as they physically ruin what the Novaks hold dear to them. In return the Novaks judge the Raleighs on their sense of righteousness and responsibility, the Raleighs social standing allowing them
In order to reasonably deduce who the murderer is we first need to use economic reasoning to understand who it is not. Spearman manages to use the economic concept of game theory to explain why two of the most incentivized characters in the novel and the confessors of the crimes, Ricky LeMans and Vernon Harbley, indeed admit to a crime they never actually commit. Game theory as explained by Eric P. Chiang in CoreMicreconomics is, “the study of strategy and strategic behavior and is used in any situation in which one must predict the actions of others and respond by choosing among more than one strategy, each resulting in a potentially
...and tells him how he would love to meet Captain America. That same night, when Bucky visits Steve’s tent, he discovers that Steve is Captain America. Knowing Steve’s secret, Steve makes Bucky his partner.
These two men, both coming from different backgrounds, joined together and carried out a terrible choice that rendered consequences far worse than they imagined. Living under abuse, Perry Smith never obtained the necessary integrity to be able to pause and consider how his actions might affect other people. He matured into a man who acts before he thinks, all due to the suffering he endured as a child. Exposed to a violent father who did not instill basic teachings of life, Smith knew nothing but anger and misconduct as a means of responding to the world. He knew no other life. Without exposure to proper behavior or responsible conduct, he turned into a monster capable of killing an entire family without a blink of remorse. In the heat of the moment, Perry Smith slaughtered the Clutter family and barely stopped to take a breath. What could drive a man to do this in such cold blood? The answer lies within his upbringing, and how his childhood experiences shaped him to become the murderer of a small family in Holcomb, Kansas. ¨The hypothesis of unconscious motivation explains why the murderers perceived innocuous and relatively unknown victims as provocative and thereby suitable targets for aggression.¨ (Capote 191). ¨But it is Dr. Statten´s contention that only the first murder matters psychologically, and that when
The evidence discovered during the investigation suggested to the police that OJ Simpson may have had something to do with this murder and they obtained an arrest warrant. The investigators believed that they “knew” OJ Simpson committed the murders. His lawyers and him were informed of the arrest warrant and agreed to a specified time when OJ would turn himself into authorities. Investigators are later admonished, by the defense, on how they handled the crime scene.
Steve Harmon is truly guilty of Felony murder. He shows this in his journal entries. Other admitted participants also show this.In the eyes of the law Steve is giulty because he agreed to go into the store on that
Steve walked to the front with notes. Now, I am not trying to put him down in any way,
Christopher Johnson McCandless, a.k.a Alexander Supertramp, “Master of his Own Destiny.” He was an intelligent young man who presented himself as alone but really he was never lonely. However, he believed that life was better lived alone, with nature, so he ventured off throughout western United States before setting off into Alaska’s wild unprepared where he died. Some may say he was naive to go off on such a mission without the proper food and equipment but he was living life the way he wanted to and during his travels he came across three people: Jan Burres, Ronald Franz, and Wayne Westerberg. McCandless befriended these people, it is believed that he made such a strong impression on them that their connection left them with strange feelings after finding out about McCandless’ death.
His personality and way of thinking played a role in his many un-ethical decisions. Steve was a man of great intellect, but he lacked heart, hurting countless people in his personal life and in the work place. He would attack anyone that got in the way of his goals. He was a rude and controlling man, and who lacked concern for the welfare of others. “One thing Jobs himself avoided doing was "helping neighbors in need." There is no public record of him giving a dime to charity, and on several occasions he was ostentatious in his refusal to do so” (Ferguson 2015). Is this proper ethics? “Workplace bullying also is very bad for business. Researcher Emily Bassman found that "employee abuse can have major bottom-line consequences" for employers. An employer may suffer direct costs, indirect costs, and opportunity costs as a result of abusive work environments”. (Yamada 2000) Poor ethical choices effect the profitability of a company. Steve was a genius for what he contributed to the technology industry, but he was not very ethical. He gained the world, but where was his
The first part of Steve’s speech, he talks about connecting the dots and what that means. He dropped out of college after a short time and by doing so; it allowed him to start his successful business that has grown into a two billion dollar industry. Dropping