Injustice Theme Analysis

The story of Steve’s arrest, imprisonment, and court case suggests that absurdity, malpractice, and general apathy are pervasive in the justice system. In part because he is a young black man, Steve feels rushed through the system by people who do not actually care whether he is guilty or innocent, but simply assume his guilt and want a maximum punishment. Steve’s narrative ultimately depicts a broken justice system in which injustice is the most likely outcome of a case.

Most people involved in Steve’s case seem uninterested and eager to get it over with, even though its outcome will have a monumental impact on Steve’s life. One of the prison guards at the courtroom calls Steve’s case a “motion case. They go through the motions; then they lock them up.” When Detective Karyl and Detective Williams initially arrest Steve after King tells them Steve shot Mr. Nesbitt, Williams also remarks that the court will simply run Steve’s case through the motions to resolve it quickly and save time and money. One of the court lawyers also accuses the detectives of skipping the investigation entirely, relying only on King’s accusation. The general disregard for Steve’s actual guilt or innocence—since even the detectives don’t bother investigating—suggests that his trial is viewed only as a process to go through, not an execution of justice. During the closing arguments from all three lawyers, Steve notes in his screenplay that the courtroom is nearly empty, and even the courtroom guards, clerks, and administrators are bored, falling asleep, or distracted with other tasks like sorting mail. This description further suggests that although Steve’s future hangs in the balance, for the people who work in the justice system, the trial seems like only a rote process that they have repeated countless times.

In addition, the court tries to dole out punishments that seem entirely disproportionate to the crimes they’re supposed to punish. Although Steve’s narrative never explicitly affirms that he was the lookout for Bobo and King, it implies that he did check the store for them before their botched robbery. However, Steve did nothing more than enter and exit the store, and he was long gone by the time the murder occurred; he never spoke to Bobo or King again. Despite the minimal connection that Steve has to the crime, the state prosecutor wants to see him given the maximum sentence for felony murder—which is death—regardless of the fact that he did nothing himself and that he is only a teenager. Steve sees this as entirely disproportionate. He asks himself, “What did I do? I walked into a drugstore to look for some mints, and then I walked out. What was wrong with that?” Even if prosecutor Petrocelli is right that Steve was involved in the crime and is technically legally culpable for the murder, throwing away a young kid’s life—especially when he has no prior criminal history—seems entirely unjust. Petrocelli’s insistence on harsh punishment suggests that the prosecution cares more about meting out as much retribution as possible than it does about real justice.

The sense that the justice system is overly punitive is also reinforced by Detective Karyl when he arrests Steve. Although Detective Williams (who is black) argues that they don’t need Steve since he obviously isn’t important to the case, Karyl (who is presumably white) automatically assumes that Steve is guilty without any proof, and states that he hopes Steve will get the death penalty, even though he’s just a 16-year-old kid. Karyl obviously cares less about justice then about seeing a black kid receive the maximum punishment possible. While he is in prison, Steve overhears another inmate (who is white) explain that he attempted a robbery by holding his hand in his pocket (to insinuate that he had a weapon, when he actually did not have a weapon), and then peacefully turned himself in to the police when this failed. The courts charged him with “armed robbery” and “possession of a deadly weapon,” even though he did not possess a deadly weapon. Nonetheless, he was sentenced as though he did. This suggests that the disproportionately severe punishment Steve faces is typical in the justice system.

Steve is ultimately exonerated after he claims that he was nowhere near the store on the day the shopkeeper was murdered. Although his inner narrative implies that this was a lie, the disproportionate punishment the state sought and the general disregard for his life that most members of the justice system demonstrated seems to suggest that, in his case, declaring him innocent and allowing him to live his life as a free man is more just than convicting him for a murder in which he was barely involved. If the justice system is so unjust as to steal Steve’s future over a crime he was only tangentially involved in, his exoneration even on a fraudulent claim of total innocence seems ultimately more just. The novel’s sense that there is a binary choice between cruelly severe punishment and total exoneration (and not an option to punish Steve only for his actual wrongs) suggests that the justice system is fundamentally broken and does not function in the pursuit of justice.