I was really moved by this book and found that the writing style hooked me in from the very beginning all the way through to the end. I enjoyed reading a book that read like a movie, it was different than going through a typical book. I think that this novel would entice reluctant readers because of how it is written. Additionally, it is fairly short in length, especially when you consider many pages contain only a small amount of words. The format coupled with the premise of the book would make it a great read in the classroom.
What I would like to focus on is the value of a HUMAN life. I stress the word human here because, as this book points out, some of us are monsters, or at least we are perceived that way. The scene where Detectives Karyl and Williams are questioning Steve really made me consider whether or not I value some people's lives more than others and whether or not we do this as a society. The detectives are discussing whether Steve will get a sentence of 25 to life or a death sentence. During the discussion Karyl says, "The victim was well respected in the neighborhood. Hard-working Black guy, worked his way up. He even sponsored a Little League team." I couldn't help but think after reading this passage how unfair this argument was, and not only unfair in the courtroom, but unfair in the world. I don't think the punishment for killing a person should vary based on WHO got killed. The same penalty should be given to the murderer no matter who was killed. It shouldn't matter if a poor homeless man who never contributed to society was murdered or a charitable billionaire who donated money to feed the hungry and shelter the poor was murdered. The penalty for murder should be the same. I am not arguing that either 25 to life or the death penalty is the answer. What I am arguing is that there should be consistency for murdering a HUMAN being. However, this scene implies that if a person with a troubled past was murdered instead of Mr. Nesbitt, then there would not even be the discussion of the death penalty. I wonder if there would even have been an investigation with the information I gathered from this novel if a poor person from a bad neighborhood was murdered. I think that a human life is a human life. All human lives should be valued equally.
The passage I quoted above continues on to show that not all lives are valued the same. Detective Karyl sees Steve as a Monster, not a human being as he is ready to hope Steve receives the death penalty. The passage starts with Williams saying, "This guy's only 16. They won't kill him." Then Karyl replies with, "What are you, a pessimist? Hope for the best." I am bothered by the fact that Karyl is hoping that Steve gets the death penalty. I don't think anyone should HOPE that another human being loses their life, even if that person committed a crime. I think this especially holds true for those employed in law enforcement and in the justice department. I think that kind of thinking will taint their judgment on the job. Karyl clearly does not value all human life equally; he is the type of person who considers some of us to be MONSTERS.
There are so many great topics that could be covered in this novel; I touched on just one. I encourage everyone to read this novel. I especially like the ending and how it doesn't tell you what to think. Walter Dean Meyers allows you to make up your own mind on the ending of the trial.
Excellent analysis of this frustrating book, Matt. There are so many characters that pass judgement well before any of the facts are known, and in the end it seems the members of the jury are the only ones who think Steve is not guilty of the crime. And interestingly, they certainly don't go so far as to say he is innocent- just that he is not guilty. Sure, the legalese involved doesn't allow for an 'innocent' verdict, but this distinction is certainly not lost on the author. It is especially telling that we are never let in on whether or not Steve actually was the lookout. It is as if the author is tempting us to make our own assumptions and side with either the jurors or everyone else. He gives us reasonable doubt, and that's it. I;m still not sure how I feel about it. Did Steve 'get away with it'? Or was he as innocent as the jurors were led to believe? That might be an interesting way to present it to a class. They could act as jury and see what verdict they come up with based on the testimony of the novel. I think a secret ballot may yield results that could spark a great discussion.
ReplyDelete