Although the trial ends with a verdict of not guilty, it is not made clear whether or not Steve was completely innocent. I believe, that Steve didn’t take part in the murder or the crime based off of evidence in the story.
First of all, Steve Harman is scared to death of jail. He even says over and over again that he “hates this place”. Don’t you think he would think twice before he broke a law if he hates jail so much? You'd think he would do anything to stay away from the possibility that would qualify for him to be in jail?
Secondly, he is not violent. All the rest of the prisoners are addicted to sex or causing harm to someone’s body. If anything Steve tries to avoid these things. Moreover, nowhere in the text does it say he fought or harassed anyone. After all, we learned that Steve’s natural instinct is to run when there is a threat. I know that Steve doesn’t belong there with the criminals he is not one of them.
Third, he is said to be a good kid. Why would a “good kid” …show more content…
For example, when he is questioned on page 223 he totally denies being anywhere near the drugstore during that day. Then later on page 115 said he went in the store but was “just looking around” and next he states on page 140 he was just "buying mints”. But I have an answer to his inconsistency. Because there is no evidence against him, to prove he is innocent O'Brien tells him what to and what not to say. This is even if it is fibbing. Disregarding the examples that create doubt in readers, the story never openly says Steve was a part of the robbery. Nevertheless, my opponents could use this evidence to prove he did commit a crime.
In conclusion, Steve Harman couldn't have committed any crimes. This is because he highly despises prison, he doesn’t seek to disturb people, and he has overall respected character. These are three of many reasons why I think the jury’s decision of not guilty is