In Monster by Walter Dean Myers, what do Steve's flashbacks to learning of Nesbitt's murder suggest about his guilt or innocence?

On page 117, Steve overhears a woman in his neighborhood tell a friend that some kids shot and killed an owner from the drugstore. Initially, the script's action describes Steve standing within earshot holding a basketball. However, at some point what he hears gets to be too much, because after the woman 2 says "Oh, you know it's a shame. You know it is," the script's action describes Steve so desperate to get away that he leaves behind his ball. Even as Steve disappears into the crowd, the audience continues to hear the two women talking as a voiceover. It is as if he feels their voices are accusing him and he can't get them out his head. That certainly suggests some kind of guilt on his part. The images in the script reinforce that guilt further when it describes the camera panning to the basketball left in the gutter. Steve seems to know that he has let himself down.

On page 120, we see Steve sitting in his apartment watching the TV newscaster describe the murder of the drugstore owner. "He is staring straight ahead, mouth open in absolute shock." He doesn't even react when his brother turns over to the cartoon channel. Again, it is difficult to seem him reacting in this way if he wasn't in some way involved in the crime. As the deflected colors of the cartoon moving across his face suggest, he has exited the innocence of childhood and entered the dark, often unforgiving world of adulthood.

In the first chapter of Monster, the narrator, Steve, mentions that, to him, being in jail is like being in a movie—one of the old ones that are difficult to follow. In fact, Steve decides to journal about his trial as if it were a movie, and the title he chooses is "Monster," since that’s what the prosecutor is calling him; this gives readers their first real glimpse of who Steve might be.

Just like in a real film, the author of Monster, Walter Dean Myers, chooses to give us further clues as to who Steve is as a person, his interior character traits. During two of these cutscenes, Steve learns that Aguinaldo Nesbitt has been murdered, and it is in the description of Steve’s reaction to this that we can infer more about Steve’s emotional state.

In the first flashback, Steve overhears two women discussing the shooting. Steve begins to walk, then trot, finally breaking into a run until the camera pans the neighborhood, and we can no longer see him. Steve is literally running away from the news of Nesbitt’s death. Clearly he is afraid, but whether this fear comes from guilt is still unclear.

In the second flashback, Steve is watching the news, and the recent shooting is the current hot topic. Jerry changes the channel, seemingly unfazed. Steve, however, is described as staring fish-faced—in other words, eyes bulging, mouth gaping. These are sure signs of fear and maybe even some guilt.

But is Steve guilty? Is he the monster the prosecution would have the jury believe him to be? It’s hard to say. On the one hand, we know Steve hung out with a pretty rough crowd; in chapter fourteen, he is even asked to be a lookout for the heist Nesbitt dies on, and Steve was there: “I walked in a drugstore to look for some mints and then I walked out,” he writes in his journal. But whether he was also acting as a lookout, we don’t know.

Conversely, Steve is portrayed as a good kid; his teacher testifies describing him as bright and compassionate, and he is terrified of jail and the violent men inside. Whether he is truly guilty and whether these flashbacks offer proof of this or not is ambiguous. One thing is for certain: at his core, Steve is just a scared kid, struggling to figure out who he really is.

In the first flashback scene, Steve overhears two women speaking about the murder of Aguinaldo Nesbitt. Steve then walks through the crowd of people, and begins to sprint away as the camera pans out. Steve running away from the scene suggests that he feels guilty about his involvement in the crime and is trying to escape from the reality of the situation. In the second flashback scene, Steve is watching the news and listens as the newscaster says that two armed men robbed and killed Aguinaldo Nesbitt. Jerry then picks up the remote and changes the channel. Steve Harmon's mouth is wide open and is in absolute shock after hearing about the tragedy. Two weeks later, Steve watches the news and learns that Richard "Bobo" Evans was arrested for robbery and murder. The camera then cuts to Steve's room, where he is lying on his bed with his eyes open. When he hears a knock on the door, Steve does not even react. Steve's emotions after learning about the crime suggest that he was involved because he is extremely worried and afraid. When Steve overhears the women talking about the crime, he runs away out of fear. After learning that the store owner was murdered during the robbery, Steve is shocked. His emotions reveal his fear and anxiety about being arrested for his involvement in the robbery. Steve's reactions suggest that he was involved and is guilty of participating in the robbery and murder of Aguinaldo Nesbitt.

What does Steve's father think about his guilt or innocence in Monster?

In the story, both of Steve's parents attend his trial. As to what his father thinks of his innocence or guilt, we will try to ascertain this by referring to the text.

Accordingly, the text does not clearly establish Steve's culpability in the shooting of Alguinaldo Nesbitt. We get the impression that he may have been a lookout for Bobo and King, but we can't be sure if this is what really happened.

In her closing statements, the assistant district attorney, Sandra Petrocelli, argues that Steve is guilty, even if he didn't pull the trigger. She claims that his participation in scouting out the store ensures the certitude of his guilt in any rational person's eyes. Petrocelli thinks that Steve should be held accountable for his part in the crime, regardless of whether he participated in the killing or not. Steve's denial of guilt in the affair corresponds to his diary entry that 'he didn't do nothing.'

Steve is acquitted, but the gist of Petrocelli's arguments stand. Perhaps this is why even Steve's attorney, Ms. O'Brien, refuses to return his hug after he is found not guilty by the court. The text tells us that she stiffens when Steve approaches her for a hug and that she moves away from him. Perhaps she is not sure whether she has just helped to secure a guilty criminal's freedom or assisted in freeing an innocent by-stander. For that matter, Steve's father is just as ambivalent about Steve's guilt as O'Brien. Let's take a look at the text:

After the trial, my father, with tears in his eyes, held me close and said that he was thankful that I did not have to go to jail. He moved away, and the distance between us seemed to grow bigger and bigger. I understand the distance. My father is no longer sure of who I am. He doesn't understand me even knowing people like King or Bobo or Osvaldo. He wonders what else he doesn't know.

Like Ms. O'Brien, Steve's father appears ambivalent about Steve's acquittal. Because the text does not explicitly establish Steve's guilt (and Steve himself does not clearly admit it), we can only guess at the thoughts Steve's father has towards him. At this point, we know from the paragraph above that Steve's father feels blind-sided by these new revelations about Steve's extra-curricular activities and his acquaintance with shady characters. These are stunning and not especially pleasant revelations for a father to have about his son.

The statement 'He wonders what else he doesn't know' clearly illustrates that Steve's father is troubled about the possibility of his son's involvement in the homicide. However, at this point, he is relieved beyond measure that his son is a free man, and despite any reservations, he will welcome his son back home.

Is Steve innocent in the novel Monster?

Whether it was intended or not, this becomes the critical issue of the novel.  At the same time, the wording of the question has to be examined.  There is a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty."  The legal system and the timbre of the book focuses on "not guilty."  It is a "not guilty" verdict that is read aloud.  It is a "not guilty" verdict that O'Brien drives towards in defending Steve.  It is a "not guilty" verdict that Steve holds in his own mind as the lasting legacy of the trial.  Steve is found "not guilty" and this becomes what we, as the readers, take from the narrative.  The legal system has found Steve "not guilty" and this has to be accepted.

Whether or not Steve is innocent might be an entirely different set of conditions.  To be "innocent" means that Steve did nothing wrong and was a victim of circumstance.  It is here where the case becomes much more difficult to make.  Steve would have to be seen as entirely devoid of doing anything seen as a bad choice.  If this were the case, there would not be so much question at the end of the narrative as to whether he really is a "monster."  If the novel leads the reader down a road of questioning as to if the "not guilty" verdict is valid and "true," then the question as to "innocence" would be even more challenging.  The fact that the narrative is presented in a script form also adds to this, for the script manner never gives the reader a full point of view or a wide frame of reference.  It is always dependent on cuts and specific moments.  There is nothing absolute and totalizing in a script format, being dependent on point of view.  For this reason, being able to ascertain whether the jury made the right decision becomes the looming challenge at the conclusion of the novel.  If this is so, then it becomes even more difficult and intricate to ascertain Steve's innocence, a standard which is much higher than "not guilty."

Do you believe that Steve is guilty in the novel "Monster"?

I think this is what makes the book so relevant and exciting.  As readers, we each take a different stance. Is he guilty? Is he innocent?  The important thing is to keep up with why you think he's innocent.  You could be absolutely correct, but remember that you have to be able to articulate why you think this way.  Keep in mind who your narrator is, whose thoughts your reading.  Do we connect with our narrator? Does that make it harder to see him as guilty?

An excellent debate topic for your class.  Look back at those instances where you think he shows his innocence.

I am sure that you would find many people would agree with you, and many other people would not agree with you. If you are looking for support to your stand, I agree. I do not think that Steve Harmon is guilty. The flashbacks provided, his journal (movie script), and the point of view he offers leads me to believe in his innocence.

As for Steve's possible guilt, there are a few times in the novel where Steve seems to float a little too much during his narrative.

Overall, it simply depends if you (as a reader) can relate to him and feel sympathy. If you do, you will most likely feel as if he is innocent. If you fail to relate and sympathize , you will most likely find him guilty.