Meeting Judge Scott Miller was a very unique experience. I guess it’s a bit odd but I was thinking of my younger brother who wants to be a lawyer as well. Instead of the serious and intimidating judge I was expecting, Judge Miller turned out to be a Cornellian who wanted to discuss some of his experiences with younger Cornellians. I think the fact that he refused to be applauded speaks volumes of the type of person he is. I expected a harsher individual, especially since he practices in criminal law. Instead, Judge Miller somehow came away from certain very dark and interesting cases (there was this one case discussed that could be one of the most interesting cases I’ll ever hear) as this optimistic and “bubbly” person. Perhaps, bubbly isn’t the right word. However, his enthusiasm struck me.

My little brother wants to be criminal lawyer as well and I was wondering how does all this darkness affect a person. Although I have been away from home too long to actually construct an idea of how he deals with negativity, Judge Miller’s example seems inspirational. In addition, Judge Miller provided a brief look into how legislation works or how the relationships around Tompkins County operate. The difficulties he has faced with certain rulings and his insight on the differences in role between a lawyer and judge.

The first thing that stuck out to me about Judge Miller was how comfortable and funny he was. While he was clearly in a profession that required discipline, he didn’t let this stereotypical characteristic define him. And this became more and more clear as the night went on. One of the most poignant questions that was asked was how  he managed to stay optimistic after seeing the true depravity of the human condition through his years in court. His response, one that I hope I’ll never forget, was that he realized that no person is defined by the worst thing they’ve done in their life. Save for perhaps a few exceptions, no one is truly good or bad, and its essentially just a lot of gray that sometimes get darker or brighter. This is a lesson I hope to keep in mind as I continue to make my way through life and need to make judgments about the people I meet.

Before walking into Rose Cafe last week, I envisioned Judge Miller: stoic and bland. However, my preconceived ideas of him did not match the person capturing the attention of the already twenty or so seated audience members when I walked into the Cafe.  Before I arrived, someone must have asked him what his favorite case was during his professional career as a defense attorney because he was mid way through explaining a twisted case of potential kidnapping. Although his stories were interesting and slightly unbelievable, the bigger surprise to me was how laid back, appropriately animated, and engaging he was; he sipped espresso and imparted sage advice about the need to find the strengths of another person’s character besides simply noticing their greatest flaws.

Last week, Judge Miller came to Rose Cafe and talked with us about some crazy cases he met in his career and how he viewed about human nature. I learned and thought a lot from his talk. It is true that people sometimes judge others with bias. More specifically speaking, people sometimes tend to view others according to the worst thing they have ever done. However, humans are not black and white. First, people who seem to be criminal may not be the actual culprits. Second, even if a person is criminal in something, he may still have other sides of human nature: He may love his wife, his children, and his other family. He may have many interesting hobbies such as planting. When they have paid for what they should pay for their criminal behavior, they should have the opportunity to be in the society again. No matter how many dark sides of human we have seen or heard, we should still believe the goodness of human nature and do not judge others.

Last Wednesday, I went to a talk with House Fellow Judge Scott Miller. The talk started off great; not only was his story towards jurisprudence inspiring, but every anecdote he shared was as interesting as it was amusing. We filtered between topics such as constitutional law, school, and Ithaca in general. Judge Miller offered an informal atmosphere in which the students were encouraged to ask questions and engage in dialogue that was prevalent to today.

As the talk came to the end, Judge Miller wanted to highlight the current political climate, saying that the US government was built with checks and balances that ensured the preservation of the country. Judge Miller made it clear that his comments were very general and that he neither endorsed nor disapproved of the current administration. But projecting my own beliefs onto his words, I think his comments served to energize us in the sense that the state of the US will not always be as it is today, whether for better or for worse.

But I’m not too sure if I agree. Trump as president is more than just 4- and potentially 8- years of sexism, racism, and homophobia. His election has served to normalize these traits into what is already a sturdy structure of institutional and systemic oppression. He is not the beginning of these problems, and he is surely not the end. When he does leave office, there will be just as many racist people in the country as there was before, and thinking that things will be better at the end of his term is too idealistic to have credence.

Considering the things that have happened on Cornell’s campus in the past two days, things have not gotten better. And Cornell loves to say that they are in support of diversity, but when push comes to shove, little is done to protect our communities. A black man was hospitalized because five white men in a frat decided to call him racial slurs and jump him in the dead of night. No one has been taken to jail. No one has issued warnings to other students of color. No one has listened to the concerns of our community. No one affiliated with Cornell has released a statement of solidarity with the people of color on campus.

So where do we stand after the next 4 years? The same place we were before, and the same place we are now: in a country that was founded on the oppression of the ‘other.’

I admire Judge Miller’s optimism, but hope is hard to maintain when there’s no end in sight.

Judge Scott Miller’s talk on Wednesday night was both interesting and informative. It isn’t often that I get to hear experiences of a judge, so to listen to Judge Miller’s stories and lessons was very refreshing and engaging. Though, it was one point Judge Miller discussed that resonated with me: sometimes, we have to do something that we don’t want to do or couldn’t think we could do in order to accomplish a greater goal. During one of his cases early in his career, Judge Miller was forced to represent a client he knew was guilty of the accusations. Judge Miller didn’t think he could win the case, as all the evidence was against his client, and dropping the case wasn’t an option. He had to stand in trial and fight for justice, no matter how unconfident he felt. In the end, Judge Miller won the case, to his surprise.

This story showed me that, no matter how much I feel I won’t succeed in something, I can do it, even if everything and everyone is against me. This message will serve me well as I advance in my academic and professional careers. When I inevitably encounter a situation similar to Judge Miller’s, I will remember that it is my drive and determination to accomplish a goal that will determine my success, not any of the intervening obstacles.

On Wednesday, Judge Miller gave a conversation during the Rose Cafe hour. He made two statements that stuck out to me the most, both of which I wish he expanded on more. The first was that law and morality are distinct from each other. He specifically made this comment in the context of the lawyer’s obligation to defend the prosecuted regardless of the evidence in favor of a guilty charge. I wish he would have talked more about why it is  the case that law and morality are distinct. Certainly, some theories of law such as natural law theory reject this proposition. And, in his discussion he talked about a defense lawyer’s obligation to “zealously defend” the persecuted. If this is a legal obligation, then what makes it obligatory? Is it merely obligatory because pragmatically it should be? Or because there are legal consequences for failure to abide by it? It seems hard to enforce a notion of legal obligation without invoking some form of moral obligation.

The other comment he made that I was curious about was along the lines of history always favors the progressive. Again, this is a claim that I wish he expanded on more. It certainly seems easy to find moments in history where this perspective doesn’t make sense, e.g. before the first wave of democracy. Then again, I suppose the statement is contingent on what is meant by progressive.

This week I went to a Rose Cafe where we got to talk with Judge Miller. It was really interesting to hear stories about his career as a defense attorney, and now, a judge. One thing that he said that really stood out to me was that he noticed that very few people that he met were all good or all bad–most people were shades of grey. I think that that is very true. Most people’s first reaction when they hear about something good (or bad) that somebody did is to classify that person just based on that one action. Now while is a good idea for truly horrendous actions, I think that we should refrain from making judgements about people just based on one mistake that they made. I took a social psych class last semester, and we learned that the reason that we stereotype or make judgments about people based on limited information is because it’s easier for the brain to predict future behavior based on these judgements. But a lot of the time these stereotypes or judgments turn out to be wrong. That’s why I believe that we should look at the whole picture before forming an opinion about the average person.

I really enjoyed the Rose Cafe Session with Judge Scott Miller. It was particularly engaging thanks to Judge Miller’s focus on making this a social gathering between a group fellow Cornellians. Though I’m not planning on studying Law, I found Judge Miller’s experiences very interesting and was able to take a good deal out of his stories. The story of the “craziest case” he had ever worked on created many questions in me as well as in the group about what it really meant to view people as good or evil and about how we ought to view criminals as a society.

I found the question about how Judge Miller deals with all this “darkness” in his life was very thought provoking and led to a great and casual discussion on human nature. I thought about this after the session and really appreciated seeing that my outlook on life was shared by someone with whom I shared very little in common with. The idea that people are more complex than good or evil really stuck with me as it is something I always held to be true, seeing it corroborated by such an experienced professional was comforting. I also really enjoyed that same belief of people being complex being challenged at the very beginning with the story of the seemingly sadistic kidnapping case. Seeing how this case turned out, however, further proved our inner complexities and I think dismisses the idea of all criminals being evil people. My great takeaway from this Cafe Session with Judge Miller is that we are all complex and we have to treat each other with the respect that complexity deserves.

It not everyday the average person gets to interact with a sitting judge on a candid level. It was interesting to hear about his favorite cases, how to weigh the consequence’s of one’s actions, and his perspective on who the law serves and how it should be applied. Yet, the most rewarding part of the event was heading to the dining hall afterward with a couple other residents and just getting to know each other. We talked about out favorite children’s books, the restaurant Judge Miller’s wife owns in the Commons (Madeline’s), and just got to know each other. Getting to know Judge Miller as a judge was certainly rewarding, but getting to know him as a person was the best of all.

At this evening’s Rose Cafe, Judge Miller was asked about how he copes with knowing the types and amounts of evil that exist in the world. In response, he stressed the importance of empathy, especially after his experiences working with and defending people who have allegedly committed horrible crimes. He pointed out that people are not black and white — there is always gray area, and humans are full of complications. Very few people are exclusively good or bad, and the best way to witness this is to, as Atticus Finch says, walk in someone else’s skin. This analysis clearly extends beyond the scope of criminal defense, though it is evidently applicable and imperative for those within it. Like criminal defense lawyers, we as citizens of the world are faced with the mixing of good and bad every day, and it is easy to become bogged down in negatives. Judge Miller pointed out that we as humans often attempt to judge people by the most awful action or quality we have heard they possess. Should we continue through life this way, the world would turn into a fairly depressing place. However, much of the conflict in the world today could be solved by a simple dose of empathy and understanding. Despite all the negativity we might witness (and exclusively perceive), we as the future influencers of the world have a responsibility to take that medicine and see the world in a better light.