Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in Monster, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
Dehumanization and Racism
Lies and Self-Interest
Endemic Violence
Injustice
Summary
Analysis
Steve resumes his screenplay. In the courthouse, O’Brien and Petrocelli chat briefly with the judge before Petrocelli calls Lorelle Henry to the stage, a 58-year-old school librarian. Petrocelli questions Henry, who testifies that she was in the drugstore when King, whom she identifies, and another man entered the store and started arguing with Mr. Nesbitt and grabbed him by the collar. Henry left as quickly as she could, seeing that there was about to be violence.
The fact that King grabbed Mr. Nesbitt by the collar and started arguing with him again suggests that the murder was not a premeditated action but the accidental result of a struggle, which thus suggests that if Steve is guilty by association, it was never his intention to take part in something that would cost a man his life.
Themes
After Petrocelli is through, Briggs questions Henry, stating that she was given around 20 photographs of different people from which to identify King. Henry admits that at first she had trouble identifying him; he looks different in person than he did in the photographs, but now she feels confident that it’s him. She also admits that she had “trouble testifying against a black man,” but now feels she is doing the right thing. Henry later identified King in a lineup as well, but Briggs points out that there were only six people in that lineup. Briggs steps down, and O’Brien has no further questions.
Briggs’s challenge to Henry’s memory and ability to identify King raises the possibility that King has been misidentified, even though Henry seems to be a key witness. This again suggests the possibility of malpractice on the part of the justice system. Henry’s hesitation to aid in the prosecution of a black man suggests that she recognizes that the justice system often treats black men unjustly, issuing prejudiced verdicts.
Themes
Petrocelli brings Bobo Evans in as a witness. Bobo is large, unkempt, and wearing a wrinkled orange jumpsuit. Briggs calls a sidebar to ask why Bobo wasn’t given a suit to wear, since his appearance will prejudice the jury against him, but Petrocelli says that they offered Bobo a suit and he refused to put it on. The case resumes and Petrocelli questions Bobo on the stand. Bobo testifies that he’s currently in prison for selling drugs, but he’s been arrested numerous times before for thefts and even manslaughter. Bobo states that he’s known King his whole life and met Steve just before the robbery took place.
Bobo’s purposefully unkempt appearance and long criminal history suggests not only that he is violent and abrasive—a starkly different sort of individual than Steve, despite Petrocelli’s desire to lump them all together—but also suggests that his testimony will be unreliable, since he presents himself as a fundamentally untrustworthy person.
Themes
Bobo continues to testify that he and King robbed the drugstore. He claims that first, Steve went into to see if there were cops while he and King waited outside. When Steve came out and gave the signal, King smoked a little bit of meth and they went inside. Mr. Nesbitt pulled a gun from behind the counter and King tried to wrestle it from him, and soon Bobo heard a gunshot and saw Nesbitt fall down. They took the cash and some cigarettes and left the drugstore, going to a fast-food place to buy some food.
Bobo’s testimony that after they accidentally murdered Mr. Nesbitt, they simply went to a restaurant to buy a meal suggests that both men are utterly indifferent to Mr. Nesbitt’s death at their own hands—they both lack any empathy whatsoever or remorse for their crime. This again characterizes them as habitually violent people, completely different from Steve.
Themes
Get the entire Monster LitChart as a printable PDF.
Bobo says they were eventually supposed to split the money with Osvaldo and Steve. Petrocelli asks what signal Steve gave when he came out of the store, but Bobo only says that Steve didn’t say anything at all, so he and King assumed they were good to go. Bobo believes the shooting was accidental. The police came for Bobo after he sold cigarettes to Bolden who told someone else who ratted them out, although Bobo was already under arrest for trying to sell drugs to an undercover cop. The state promised Bobo a reduced sentence for his part in the murder if he testified against his accomplices. Petrocelli takes her seat.
The fact that Bobo, who admits to participating directly in the murder and has a long criminal history, is being offered a reduced sentence while Petrocelli is seeking the worst punishment possible for Steve again suggests that the justice system’s punishments are often wholly disproportionate to a person’s alleged crime, and are therefore unjust. Even if Bobo’s testimony is true, Steve’s involvement in the crime is once again passive and minimal.
Themes
Briggs questions Bobo, pointing out that so far, he’s the only person who has admitted to being in the drugstore when a felony murder occurred. Briggs insinuates that Bobo would need someone else to pin the murder on if he ever wanted to be a free man again, and notes that Bobo is obviously unaffected by killing someone if he could go buy himself a meal directly after. Bobo still claims that King shot Nesbitt, most likely because he was high, and then tells Briggs that he’s done talking to him. Briggs sits.
Briggs’s challenging of Bobo’s testimony and unreliable character again highlights the manner in which court cases rely on subjective witnesses who are potentially lying and have motivation to lie. Although the novel never posits a better method, it does suggest that under such conditions, a criminal trial is a poor tool for revealing the truth of a situation.
Themes
O’Brien begins her questioning. When pressed, Bobo admits that he never talked to Steve himself and doesn’t know what signal Steve was supposed to give, nor did he ever see any particular signal. Although Osvaldo testified that he participated in the robbery because Bobo threatened him, Bobo reports that Osvaldo wanted to be in on it; Bobo would never work with someone who didn’t want to be there. Bobo testifies that he didn’t know there was a woman in the store, and that they didn’t split the money up as planned after he and King heard Nesbitt died. O’Brien sits.
Again, Bobo’s connection to Steve and Steve’s involvement in the crime seem minimal at best, which thus makes it absurd that the prosecution should try to pin Steve (who at most walked into and out of the store) with a more severe sentence than Bobo (who admits to participating in the murder himself). This once again highlights the disproportionate sentencing and apparent injustice propagated by the justice system.
Themes
Petrocelli stands to confirm that Bobo saw Steve come out of the drugstore immediately before the robbery. In response, O’Brien confirms that Bobo himself never spoke to Steve or saw him again, nor does he know that King ever contacted Steve again. Petrocelli announces, “The people rest,” which Steve envisions through his screenplay as a cartoon city suddenly falling asleep. The judge announces they’ll adjourn for the day and the defense can make its case in the morning. Mrs. Harmon talks to O’Brien and a guard stands next to Steve as the jury files out.
Steve’s envisioning of a cartoon city not only reminds the reader that he is still just a kid, but also nods to the subjective nature of the narration and all of the events and testimonies taking place. In this way, Steve’s potentially unreliable narration reflects the subjectivity and unreliability of the criminal testimonies being used to prosecute him.
Themes
