On September 5, 2018, I listened to Scott Miller, a New York State trial judge and the senior presiding judge of the Ithaca City Court, reflect upon his experiences and provide insight into criminal and civil issues. He offered his opinion on the American justice system by calling upon personal anecdotes.
In particular, I enjoyed listening to Mr. Miller speak about his convoluted experiences as a defense attorney when he was forced to serve potential criminals. While I do not know Mr. Miller on a personal level, I greatly respect his dedication to his profession. I cannot imagine fighting for someone who may have committed the most inexcusable atrocities. I cannot imagine defending someone who has confided in you that he or she is guilty. But Mr. Miller consistently did just that throughout his career as a defense attorney. It was eye-opening to see the ethical dilemma from an attorney’s point of view. His stories reminded me that it is essential to put yourself in other people’s shoes and analyze situations from different perspectives. Mr. Miller is able to put his personal preferences to the side and give his clients a fair chance in the American courts. Despite moral dilemmas, he was remarkably able to maintain his focus and professional identity as a defense attorney whenever necessary.
Mr. Miller explained how the “presumption of innocence” often proved ineffective during trials because the jury, comprised of regular citizens with little knowledge of the American justice system, held inherent biases against the defendant. It is human nature to presume that a person accused of a criminal offense is guilty rather than believe in his or her innocence. Mr. Miller talked about the challenges and frustrations in overcoming this initial barrier and shaping the jury members’ opinions through pure rationality. The jury often identified the defendant’s character by analyzing one potential mistake he or she made. With this in mind, Mr. Miller emphasized the importance in taking a step back and viewing the defendant as a whole person with life experiences.
This was very interesting to read! It really brings up that question of legality versus morality, and to what extent can we go against what we personally find morally “right” in order to maintain the legal system. Attorneys have to protect the guilty in order to make sure that the innocent are also protected. Your notes about juries and how a lot of jury members are not entirely educated are important and unfortunate. Stereotypes also play a major role when it comes to juries, and how seemingly meaningless things can alter our entire perception of people and their innocence.