What is the delineation between guilt and innocence? Most people would say that if one is guilty, then one has done something wrong, and if one is innocent one has not. In truth, it is not quite this simple. Steve Harmon is a prime example of this phenomenon. While he may have made some mistakes, he did not make the one he is on trial for. Steve Harmon is innocent of felony murder because he did not pull the trigger, people lie to get what they want, and there is always reasonable doubt.
Webster's Dictionary defines murder as: the crime of deliberately killing a person. Based on this definition, Steve Harmon is innocent of what he is being accused of. Steve may have been an accomplice, since King says to Steve Harmon “All we need is a lookout… you down for it?” (Myers 150), but he did not pull the trigger that killed Alguinaldo Nesbitt. Besides, Lorelle Henry …show more content…
Daily, one may wonder, “Did I take my medicine? Am I sure? Absolutely positive?”. If a person cannot even be sure that they took a pill, how can they be sure that a crime that they did not even witness occurred? Even the jury could not be entirely sure Steve Harmon had done anything wrong. The book states “The guards who were standing behind Steve move away from him. He has been found not guilty.” (Myers 276). It is impossible to be absolutely positive beyond a reasonable doubt.
Everyone reacts to trauma differently. One reason that Steve Harmon’s innocence may be doubted is his reaction to the situation he is presented with. However, this is not compelling evidence. According to one medical journal, a victim of trauma may suffer from self-blame, confusion, hopelessness, fatigue, nightmares and agitation. These are all symptoms that Steve Harmon suffers from. Besides, can one really blame him for not reacting the way one would expect? Steve Harmon has undergone a severe life-changing event that threatens his very livelihood, so perhaps he should be cut a little
Webster's Dictionary defines murder as: the crime of deliberately killing a person. Based on this definition, Steve Harmon is innocent of what he is being accused of. Steve may have been an accomplice, since King says to Steve Harmon “All we need is a lookout… you down for it?” (Myers 150), but he did not pull the trigger that killed Alguinaldo Nesbitt. Besides, Lorelle Henry …show more content…
Daily, one may wonder, “Did I take my medicine? Am I sure? Absolutely positive?”. If a person cannot even be sure that they took a pill, how can they be sure that a crime that they did not even witness occurred? Even the jury could not be entirely sure Steve Harmon had done anything wrong. The book states “The guards who were standing behind Steve move away from him. He has been found not guilty.” (Myers 276). It is impossible to be absolutely positive beyond a reasonable doubt.
Everyone reacts to trauma differently. One reason that Steve Harmon’s innocence may be doubted is his reaction to the situation he is presented with. However, this is not compelling evidence. According to one medical journal, a victim of trauma may suffer from self-blame, confusion, hopelessness, fatigue, nightmares and agitation. These are all symptoms that Steve Harmon suffers from. Besides, can one really blame him for not reacting the way one would expect? Steve Harmon has undergone a severe life-changing event that threatens his very livelihood, so perhaps he should be cut a little