Monsters, laws--- Monster in law?

I finished Monster this week as well. With my background in English as well as political science, any literature that addresses or takes place with in the law/legal system fascinates me! In the case of Monster, there's also the factor of roles to consider. It's like my perfect, nerdy threesome.
In order to understand a character completely, one must recognize that the character does not exist independently, but within a context of forces.  The forces could be many: sense of morality, social standing, religion, or formal laws.  At times, these forces work in harmony; other instances each compete in and around the character. Laws-- a controlling force-- are the center of this novel. While he sits on trial, waiting his verdict, he is stuck within the confines of the legal system. He is told where to go, when to be there, when to eat, when he can see visitors, and who he can and cannot touch. His lawyer (as a manifestation of the legal system itself) even controls who he may look at during the trial.
Steve must learn how to navigate the system he has been placed into, and to successfully do that, he picks up the vocabulary of the system. Cutting deals and convincing himself that he is a good person becomes part of the routine. In one of his handwritten entries, Steven writes, "I hear myself thinking like all the other prisoners here, trying to convince myself that everything will be all right, that the jury can't find me guilty because of this reason or that reason. We lie to ourselves here. Maybe we are here because we lie to ourselves." Is he lying to himself when he has to try to convince himself that he's a good person?
The prisoners become one entity in the system and lies become the norm. The legal system becomes the enemy which the prisoners must escape. Steven transcribes a conversation between inmates in which one states, "You in the system, you needs to get out the system" to which the other replies, "What's the truth? Anybody in here knows what the truth is? I don't know what the truth is!" The first inmate rejects Stevens definition of truth, "what you know to be right" and assures them all that truth has been lost in the prison, "Now you talking survival." To escape the system is to find truth. The trial is part of the system-- will the jury find truth?
Besides the legal system, another force that controls Steven is everyone's individual role with in the story. The jurors, the judge, each of the lawyers, the witnesses, the other alleged participants-- each one grabs Steven's fate and does what he or she believe to be right. They are on the journey for truth, but when each of the characters roles serves a different purpose, it distorts the clarity. Who is the audience in this book? Is it us the reader of this movie script? Is it the jury? Steven presents his story as it unfolds, but who is left to ultimately decide his fate and which version of the truth is right? He leaves us feeling as if we are part of the jury, and therefore, the reader has a role as well.
As Steven is a filmmaker, the part when his teacher is on the stand talking about audience and telling a story seems to be the cornerstone of his case for himself. The teacher explains, "You tell the story; you don't look for the camera technician to tell the story for you. When you see a filmmaker getting too fancy, you can bet he's worried either about his story or his ability to tell it." After this, Steven directs the movie to have a split screen of him and his lawyer. Is he worried about his story? Or is he merely acknowledging the two forces in contest with each other? The fear that persists in Steven throughout the story is yet another compelling force in his life. His fear acts as his law. Law cannot be understood in the abstract—it must be applied.  Law that is not understood maintains absolutely no power.

Wow, I should have just written a paper on this! I could go on, but I shall stop merely for time's sake.