Judge Scott Miller talked about his career as an attorney, and how many of the people he successfully defended were very likely guilty. Simply the idea that someone working in a court of law is supposed to fight as hard as they can to defend someone guilty makes the court seem questionable. Furthermore, the fact that Miller often acquitted his clients by appealing to the court’s sympathy and sense of “justice” seems to undermine the American court; this supposedly objective system of law is in fact strewn with subjectivity, uncertainty, and psychological tricks.
Yet, after hearing Miller passionately describe how he fought for his clients, I was reminded of how important it is that lawyers and the entire country not have doubt in the fight between lawyers in a court. Recently, I watched a segment on John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight that noted that many attorneys tell clients to plead guilty, and many innocent clients do indeed follow that advice and plead guilty. These attorneys clearly do not have the passion that Miller has — the passion and commitment to fight for their clients no matter what the scenario. While American courts are indubitably and massively flawed, shouting out these doubts can discourage lawyers and deteriorate the fight between lawyers that the court system relies upon, thereby completely ruining the court system. So, unless a new system for courts is found, I think we should all fervently support the current system — not because it should stay the way it is, but rather because we can’t afford to let it degrade any further.
I think your right. Though I think our court system, or rather, any court system is designed to be flawed, subjective, and uncertain because human beings themselves are those things. How can we be objective? Maybe write down a set of laws and abide by them word for word? But who gets to write these words? What if a particular case not clearly defined by these laws occurs? I think our court system is designed to reflect the views of the public and that is subject to change any given time. So I believe you have to allow for human subjectiveness to come through. I don’t think law can be objective where it’s defined by a book or words, but rather, the US law is shaped by our people’s morality.
Hearing Judge Miller’s talk also made me realize how subjective the justice system is and wonder whether there is anything fair about the system at all. How can it be fair when it is created and executed by humans who cannot truly be objective? However, we cannot always strive for the impossible. Judge Miller also made me realize that there need to be people fighting for “the other.” Because the system is so subjective, what is truly unfair is how people with more money or people who fit a certain description are less likely to be held accountable for their actions while people who seem to fit a certain stereotype are, more often than not, targeted and charged with crimes they did not commit. I also watched a video on that very John Oliver segment and I agree with you when you commend Judge Miller for defending his clients with the passion and commitment that he did during his time as a defense attorney.