This Rose Cafe hosted Judge Scott Miller: a very charismatic and engaging individual. He spoke about his experience as a lawyer defending guilty parties as well as his experience as a judge. He even shared some insight into his more interesting cases that he has encountered during his lifetime. The thing that jumped out to me the most during his talk was when he prompted us to assess criminals differently than how society encourages. It seemed that he was asking us, his audience, to instead of only looking at the negative things criminals may have done, look at who they were/are and think about the people in their lives that they are important to. I think that this was a refreshing thing to say because I feel that our society judges books by its covers way too much which damns people’s reputations and livelihoods sometimes over crimes they did not even commit.

This is the third talk I’ve attended with Judge Scott Miller, and it again did not disappoint. He took the time to get everyone’s name, and then dived directly into his experiences with the law and his judgeship. At the conclusion of the event, he asked us if any of us had read the opinion editorial of the New York Times that day. An anonymous agent in the Trump Administration wrote an op-ed that explained how multiple people of the Executive Branch were working to correct the damage Trump had done, both to the country and to the promises of the Republican party.

I had read the editorial that morning. My initial thoughts were that it is far too late to release a statement as powerful as that. President Trump’s power to effect federal change is limited. The most dangerous thing he has done is use rhetoric to skew the social climate of the United states. No impeachment or damage control can reverse the resulting hatred and bigotry that was conjured when Trump made it socially acceptable to hate rapist immigrants and shun Muslim people from the country. His lack of grace while in office has wreaked havoc that has resulted in actual lives. People have died. People have lost their children. People have lost their parents. The damage is irreversible. And while I respect the valiance of the person writing the op-ed, their sympathy is past due and their activism is self-interested.

Following the talk with Judge Miller, I did feel a bit more optimistic. The way Judge Miller speaks instills peace and hope into his audience. He reminded us that there are people fighting for our country, even if it does not feel like it. As a judge himself, his words carry much more weight than the voice inside my head, and although I wanted to cry at the end, I feel like it was a well-timed talk.

Within the past couple of months, the democratic elements that hold our nation together have been tested by the leaders of our nation. The failure of our political system in representing the ideals of the people in our nation have caused tension amongst people in the streets and even in the political system itself to arise. From the numerous protests that occur to the violent shootings or hateful attacks against minorities, the idea of a free nation where anyone, no matter what race or gender identity, can prosper as long as they work hard have been attacked to the point where many people have begun to lose faith in our systems. In this Rose Cafe, Judge Miller shared the letter from inside the White House about the resistance against the political administration within President Trump’s own cabinet. This letter caused attention from both sides of the issues in regard to Trump calling it fake news to supporters of these cabinet members to continue their efforts and devoting their support from this cause. While this occurred a month ago now, as Judge Miller stated there is no better time to young and aware. As the midterm elections are approaching, I wish to urge my fellow peers to ensure that they are registered to vote and to get their absentee ballots to vote, a right given to us that many people in nations across the world do not get to have. It may not seem that your single vote may make an impact but every vote counts in order to make sure that the right people are elected. Use your anger to strive for everything that you believe this nation can be and make sure that cases like the Brett Kavanaugh situation doesn’t occur. This is our time as young individuals who are able to voice our opinions to act and make a difference in our community.

“What an exciting time to be young and aware.”

Judge Scott Miller told us that in the eighties when he was in college, right here at Cornell, students took to the arts quad to protest against apartheid in South Africa. “The United States government was doing its job so well that we had to protest injustices in other countries.” I smiled a bit ruefully; it’s exhausting being young and aware in 2018. But he comforted us with an assurance that the world isn’t ending, that the chaos we see is just the “death rattle of the old order,” and that America will survive this current crisis of democracy the way it survived the Civil War and Civil Rights movement. Then he read us the anonymous New York Times op-ed letter aloud, as I pulled it up and read it on my phone. Looking around Dean Avery’s apartment, I realized that I was sitting through a moment of history. I truly enjoyed the experience, and my outlook on the state of the Union and the world is a bit less pessimistic now thanks to Judge Miller.

I think Scott provided a really interesting perspective about morality in court. As an attorney, he’s not the one judges the defendant, the jury is. His purpose is to defend his client even if he/she may not be entirely innocent, he still had to trust his client’s words and defend them. I realized that it’s not his job to decide what’s right or wrong, that decision lies in the hands of the public. The jury, the everyday people, have a say in what’s right or wrong. And having the attorney judge who their client is, would be partial, as he is only one opinion and does not necessarily reflect what the nation believes in. That’s why it’s important to have your voice heard in this nation because it can be heard and it may change public opinion. I think that’s why Scott mentioned protesting, as it’s a way to get people’s voices and opinions heard that can potentially change our country.

Gonna get nerdy here. Listening to Scott reminded me of the Ace Attorney games where you play as a defense attorney and using your logic, you have to win these crazy, wildly absurd cases. It works through those themes like always trusting your client/seeking truth/never giving up etc. Through the game’s philosophy and antics I think this quote from the game may fit best for this discussion:

“The law is the end product of many years of history… the fruit of human knowledge! Like a gem, polished to a gleam through trials… and errors. It is this fruit we receive, and pass on, and face in our time. And it is always changing, growing. Nurturing it is our task as human beings” (Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney).

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.

At the Rose Cafe last week, Judge Scott Miller talked about his path to where he is now. His first job right out of Cornell Law School was to defend an African American man who was the passenger in a car that had been pulled aside for an extremely petty offense; however, was found to be in the possession of firearms without a license. Though Scott Miller was told by the judge that he would be sure to lose and that it would be a valuable first case for him to learn from, and though even he himself didn’t think that he could help his defendant, he still tried to the best of his ability. He was able to find an obscure law that stated that his client had done nothing wrong given that he had only just gained possession of the arms, as well as convince the initially uninterested and skeptical jury. I found his belief of the good of the American justice system and his strong feelings of his role in it as someone who simply follows the rules and carries out his duties to be refreshing and good to hear in today’s uncertain world. I also found his thoughts on how as young people, right now we should be glad that we have something to fight for because we have the knowledge to do so. And I found it reassuring when he made the comparison of the current chaos in politics to the American Revolution which ended in independence of our country and to the Civil War which ended in the abolishment of slavery. It was nice to think that perhaps right now is simply the madness before a progressive movement for the better, something to wake us all up and make us vote and do our parts in changing the world.

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.

I thoroughly enjoyed listening to Judge Scott Miller’s perspective on his role as a criminal defendant and his thoughts on the country’s current political state. I have always wondered about the moral dilemma of acting as a criminal defendant for someone that the defender knows to be guilty. Judge Miller explained the situation to me in a way that made sense- even if he knows his client is guilty, his job is to ensure that his client is not found guilty without proper evidence and receives the lowest sentencing possible. I thought the most interesting part of the night was when Judge Miller told the story of his first case- a young black man who did something wrong- he had an unlicensed gun in his possession. However, as Judge Miller explains, when you look closer at what occurred, the young man was really in a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time due to the biases of the police officers who pulled him over. Situations like this are why criminal defense lawyers are so important. I also really appreciated Judge Miller’s explanation of the 25th amendment and how it could theoretically be used to impeach President Donald Trump. I am currently pre-med, so it was nice to have a change and hear a talk about government and law.

As a crime show fanatic, I have often considered the ethical and moral dilemma of serving as a defense attorney for someone who is guilty. Although I know that things are always more complex than they seem, I personally find it difficult to take these nuances into account in my perceptions of those who commit crimes. Listening to the Judge Miller’s experiences made me reflect about my personal biases.

During Judge Miller’s talk, he recounted some of his experiences during his time as a defense attorney. One anecdote that resonated with me was his explanation of his feelings as he went through the letters between his client (who had been accused of a violent crime) and his client’s mother. He had found that his client was actually an orphan who had eventually found his mother and was able to exchange heartwarming letters with her. Although this man was accused of a terrible offense, he had life experiences, emotions, and was human like the rest of us.

This made me think about the biases of the players in the criminal justice system. If judges, jurors, lawyers, and police officers rampantly allowed their biases to influence their perception of the law and those who break it (or accused of doing so), the system would lose its humanity. Although it is impossible to be unaffected by bias, I believe that we should strive to see others as more than our assumptions about them.  My key takeaway from Judge Miller’s story was people are not wholly good nor bad and that we should remember not to completely judge others by the worst thing they have ever done.

I have met Judge Miller several times in the past, when he gave Rose Cafés in (what was) Professor Blalock’s apartment last year. Each time he impressed me with his highly optimistic and respectful view of humanity, and of individuals. He never struck me as naïve, or uncritically positive, but rather he seemed to see the whole person, good and bad, and base his judgement off of that. When he spoke on Wednesday, he confirmed all of these things and more.

Going into the Café, I did not have much critical understanding of the criminal justice system, beyond what he had spoken about previously. It exists to put the bad guys behind bars and keep the rest of us safe, and that was all. Sure, abuses missteps happen, sometimes leading to tragedy, but on the whole it is a just institution that keeps society safe and functioning. At least that was what I thought. I never really gave much thought into what kept it just or effective, or why it wouldn’t become a detriment to freedom or safety in the future. In hearing Judge Miller speak again, I gained a newfound appreciation for the men and women who make up the criminal justice system. When he spoke about his first case, and how he lead twelve jurors to the “promised land” of reasonable doubt, I learned that what I depend upon for my legal and personal safety is not some nameless, faceless bureaucracy, but men and women like Judge Miller who, though not perfect, see the best in everyone and seek that true justice be carried out.

I was also struck when he read out the NY Times editorial that had just been published, with almost impossible timing. Although I might disagree with him politically, I was impressed with how optimistic he seemed about the trajectory of American society. Where many others see permanent division and strife, he saw an opportunity for renewal and growth. Instead of condemning American society as hopelessly riven by strife, he lived by principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” even in his political analyses. Indeed, this message of optimism, and of seeing the good alongside the bad in all things, is the most important thing I took away from the Rose Café.

Having Scott Miller describe his experiences with his role as a defense attorney I got thinking whether our current judicial system is designed the right way to offer the most safety to our current society. In his speech, Scott even told us quite naturally that he never felt uneasy about the fact that at times he might end up defending the case of someone who might actually be the guilty one (for example for committing a murder). This hit me hard and told me that something needed to change perhaps in the future we need some sort of truth-lie detectors through which the guilty himself must answer questions on whether he is guilty or not as science can offer a much more objective view towards issues than humans who are naturally engrained to be subjective based on our senses.

Last Wednesday, I had the wonderful opportunity of attending a conversation at the Rose Cafe led by Judge Scott Miller. Though the talk was originally centered around what it was like for him as a defense attorney to defend people who he knew were guilty, the conversation of that evening took various twists and turns, ranging from contemplating morality’s role in justice to evaluating good and evil to discussing freedom of the press and the power of protesting. While the range of the conversation was enlightening in many different ways, the third, in particular, resonated with me throughout the rest of the night.

I kept pondering over questions like: Just how much power does protesting really hold? And what type of protesting is the most effective, yet ethical? Do we protest just about anything that we dislike or disagree with or do our reasons need to hold some sort of depth and correspondence to the greater good? Above all, however, the one thought that I really couldn’t shake was what Judge Miller had said about being so privileged to be the youth in a time where the press makes sure the American public is aware of many, many issues within our own country, creating great opportunities to to stand up and make a difference. At first, his statement didn’t make much sense to me as protests led by the up and coming generation has always been a recurrence in the United States. But then, I realized that this current generation really was privileged in way that no other had been before. There is a huge platform that we have to make our voices known, a platform that we made for ourselves through the use of technology. We can find like minded individuals and protest or prepare protest events all online. It’s quick and efficient and so much has already been affected by it.

In retrospect, we tend to focus so much on what is wrong with this country and how much we have to fix that we forget to acknowledge and be grateful for the fact that we have access to information about almost anything that happens in this country because of the power of the press and that we are allowed, as well as encouraged by many, to be leaders of our generation and use our voices to initiate change and make differences in the world around us. Having a voice and protesting seems like an innate human right, and perhaps it should be, but in reality, not everyone has the privilege to experience either. It truly puts into perspective just how much we take advantage of our freedom of expression and the power of our voices. We shouldn’t let such privilege go to waste, even if we think we’re not doing much. Our actions always affect something.

During the Rose House Cafe last week, Judge Scott Miller gave great insights into his professional experiences thus far in his legal career. The most interesting takeaways I found were the moral dilemmas that he had with his clients as well as his analysis of the recent New York Times anonymous Op-Ed. Even though his own judgment may have led him to believe that some of his past defendants were guilty, he still defended them in the end. His morals seemed very unique in that he would defend his clients regardless of whatever his initial beliefs are, and that’s a level of trust and character that is not that common to find among people. On the other hand, we had a discussion about the anonymous Op-Ed, which is considered the first of its kind. In the past week and a half, it has stirred a lot of controversy, and our talk reflected an increasing belief that a shakeup may happen soon in the White House. The 25th amendment being invoked would be considered to be a rare historical event – it’s just a matter of time before certain dominoes start falling. He mentioned that we’re living in a crucial political climate historically because we, as college students, have things to speak out against domestically and internationally. It’s a great time to advocate for a cause, stand in opposition for beliefs you don’t necessarily agree with, or try to find compromise and suggest a solution that works for both sides involved.

Last Wednesday I attended the Rose Cafe hosted by Scott Miller. One of the key ideas he presented was a faith he held in due process – that every citizen is entitled to equal treatment in the courts. While sensible on paper, there’s a classic conundrum that comes about if you’re a defense attorney – Should you to the best of your ability defend the rights of someone you know to be guilty? Scott Miller spent a great deal of time exploring this question – and in doing so prompted myself to explore my own thoughts on the matter.

I wanted to wait until after 9/11 to discuss this issue, since I think the two are deeply related in two ways. But before I come back to the issue I want to explore the concept of retributive justice. I’d endeavor to define it, but the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does a better job than I could ever hope to:

“The concept of retributive justice has been used in a variety of ways, but it is best understood as that form of justice committed to the following three principles: (1) that those who commit certain kinds of wrongful acts, paradigmatically serious crimes, morally deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment; (2) that it is intrinsically morally good—good without reference to any other goods that might arise—if some legitimate punisher gives them the punishment they deserve; and (3) that it is morally impermissible intentionally to punish the innocent or to inflict disproportionately large punishments on wrongdoers.” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/)

With this definition under our belts, I want to return to 9/11. Anyone on the internet knows that people have some, shall we say, extreme views of the tragedy. The first extreme position is the far-right conservative take – that the perpetrators who committed these acts of terrorism are subhuman, deserving of justice only so far as they are deserving of (presumably violent) punishment. There is a second extreme response – that of the anti-American Neoliberal. America, they remind us, has done terrible things, particularly to Third World countries, and particularly in the Middle East. These acts are justified, at least to some degree, they say – this is what America deserved.

I should say at this point that I vehemently oppose both of these positions. But more importantly, I see both of these positions as deeply rooted in a sense of puritanical retributive justice. Both sides see some player in the geopolitical game as deserving of punishment. A violent punishment for their violent crimes. And I think that in seeing how retributive punishment is related to these views, we see how retributive punishment itself is a fundamentally ethically flawed position. And this brings me back, at long last, to Judge Miller, and the question of the defense lawyer dogmatically defending the guilty. If we approach this as retributive, this feels wrong – the lawyer is standing in the way of the punishment that the guilty must face. Though Scott Miller was quick to remind us that our Constitution is built on the foundation of Due Process, and with that in mind, he was fulfilling his Constitutional duty.

And therein lies the great tug of war I think that defines much of American morality – Retribution acting against Due Process. Fundamentally, the two cannot coexist. If punishing the guilty is more important than acquitting the innocent, Due Process is a simple waste of time at best and an ethical failing at worst – which, tragically, seems to be the position many of us as a gut feeling default to. We want to see awful people see “justice” – but this is not justice in the truly American sense. Our Constitution was designed fundamentally to uphold a different (and I think superior) justice. We should critically evaluate our relationship with retributive punishment, and a good place to start I feel is to understand the Scott Miller’s description of the defense attorney.

I would like to thank Judge Miller for giving me some of the starting material that has helped me chew on this over the past week, particularly yesterday.

“Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, today is a gift which is why we call it the present”, a quote from an unknown but probably very wise source. Last Wednesday I had the opportunity to listen to the Honorable Scott Miller speak about his experiences from his start as a scrappy young defense attorney to a sitting judge. While his perspective as a criminal defense attorney was intriguing, I have to say something he said about being an undergraduate student stuck out to me more than anything. He was talking about how in this day and age we have so many causes, as students, that we can protest. Whereas, as an undergrad in the 80s, the government did a wonderful job of keeping college students filled with the ideal that their government was so much better than everywhere else in the world that the students had to protest an institution halfway across the globe: apartheid in South Africa. That caused me to think about why that was possible. Sure, we have better ways of disseminating information now at a quick rate, i.e social media, but something about the statement tugged at my mind.

Today, I would venture to say that social media allows the sharing of thoughts and ideas to an extent allows for the exposure to a wide range of differing viewpoints creating a level of awareness on different issues that may not affect you personally. In comparison to the 80’s where you only knew about certain issues if it became bad enough that it was on the news or it directly affected you. The problem with hearing it on the news is that oftentimes there is a detachment between you and the story that is being reported. This detachment can become dangerous as it can cause a sense of apathy that alienates and causes a false sense of security that everything is okay in the way that you see it. Perspective is important. I’m glad that today, we have the ability to step outside of what we know and interact with people and ideas that we may not be familiar with. With that being said I would have to agree with the wise unknown source, today is a gift and we would do well to remember and cherish that and the gifts of today.

I attended last week’s Rose Cafe, where Judge Scott Miller talked about what he learned from his time as a defense attorney and the various unique experiences he had.  As a business major from a family with no real law experience or occupation, I didn’t know much going in and I didn’t know what to expect.  However, I was pleasantly surprised to hear the other side of legal procedures.

When discussing the courtroom and legal setting, TV shows, movies, etc. tend to focus on the prosecution and paint the defendant as “bad” and already guilty despite the legal system’s promotion of “innocent until proven guilty”.  While that statement is true technically, dramatizations on TV tend to suggest the opposite.  Not much is shown from the defendant’s side in a literal manner of what it’s actually like.

Judge Miller’s talk was very interesting because he presented the other side.  Many of the people he defended really were innocent, and it was up to him to prove that to the jury.  For those that he knew were guilty, it was still his responsibility to fight for them and convince the jury that there was even a sliver of doubt of his/her guilt.  I really enjoyed hearing the other side of the legal story and getting a look at what the defendant’s side of the court is like.

The Rose Cafe event with Judge Scott Miller opened my eyes about the importance of defending the guilty. When a student asked multiple questions to him, Judge Miller answered the questions clearly and shared his first trial experience using the student’s brother as an example. The student’s brother was the defendant, and the defendant was accused of having dangerous items in the car’s trunk. When the defendant told Judge Miller that he was going to talk to his family member about the items, I knew that the defendant had no bad intentions. Judge Miller told us that only he knew that the case was a temporary and lawful possession, which is a rule in New York that a person can come across a possession as long as he or she discards the possession without causing harm https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Possession_Temporary.pdf .

I did not know about the temporary and lawful possession, and before Judge Miller explained what it was, I thought that people who possessed dangerous items were automatically guilty. I am glad that Judge Miller and the jury helped the defendant get his justice and prove his innocence. Thus, Judge Miller’s talk gave us all a better understanding of how defending the guilty works.

I went to the Rose Cafe last week. The guest speaker is Judge Scott Miller, who is an Ithaca City Court Judge. During the talk, he ,as a New York State criminal, civil, family judge, discussed about his 15 years experiences of criminal defense. It is interesting to learn his first two cases and how it helped him to become a great judge. I really like the talk. It is my pleasure to be here.

At this weeks Rose Cafe Judge Scott Miller brought up many fascinating topics. One topic he brought up was the fact that people aren’t 100% good or 100% bad. I think by putting people into binaries is not only limiting but absurd. A lot of times its easier to label someone you don’t like or don’t agree with as bad. One instance in society right now is the burning of Nike shoes by people who think Colin Kaepernick, more accurately what he stands for, is bad. There is a lot of miscommunication in our society. Looking at the people who are engaging in this Nike Boycott they think anyone who supports Kaepernick is anti-American. This is not the case in my opinion.

In order to fully understand the situation we need to understand why Kaepernick decided to kneel during the national anthem. In a statement to NFL media in 2016 he said “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” he then went on to say “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.” (Source: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000691077/article/colin-kaepernick-explains-protest-of-national-anthem)

That statement to me says I need things to change and I need to be respected by the country I live in before I show pride for that country. He’s not saying he hates America he’s saying he hates the way America treats people of color. This aligns with the Black Lives Matter movement. A lot of people who support the all lives matter movement simply do not understand the meaning of the black lives matter movement or are most likely racist. The black lives matter movement is not saying that only black people matter its saying people of color deserve to be treated equally. Dear straight, cis, white, man: the black lives matter movement is not trying to say you don’t matter. However people of color have been oppressed and therefore have a reason to have a movement.  Straight, cis, rich , white men have been disregarding the rights of people of color in America since 1492 when Christopher Columbus “discovered” America. You cannot ignore the trail of tear, slavery, the treatment of African Americans pre-civil right movement.  By the way, just because the civil rights movement happened and slavery is illegal doesn’t mean African Americans (and people of color in general) aren’t discriminated against. Respect is a two-way street. Why would I respect someone  or something that has absolutely no respect for my rights. What kind of country do we live in where unarmed people of color are shot for no reason by the people who’s job it is to protect and serve? I’m not saying I’m not proud to be an American, I’m saying it is absolutely atrocious how people in this country treat minorities. Don’t even get me started on the discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.  Queer people could not get married until 2016 which is absurd but just because we can get married doesn’t mean there aren’t bigger problems affecting the LGBT community.

I will end my rant here but if you would like to engage in a conversation please comment down below.

I really enjoyed the Rose Cafe with Scott Miller because it offered a very different perspective on a system that is very familiar to me. I have family members who work in law enforcement, so I grew up with an understanding of how that aspect of the justice system worked. Essentially, law enforcement receives a call, evaluates the situation, and makes the proper arrests and files appropriate charges, after which the defendant goes to court. I had never given much thought to what happens to these people in court and who defends them. Scott Miller spent a long time working as that person and it was enlightening to hear his views on defending the guilty.

I think that it is incredibly easy to write off a criminal and assume their guilt.  In some cases, these people have committed atrocious crimes, and defending them can seem unconscionable.  However, I also believe that everyone has the right to a fair trial, regardless of the accusations. People like Scott Miller use the law to defend people, and this helps preserve the freedom of the people and helps keep the penal system just. The work of a defense attorney is difficult and raises many moral questions. Is it moral to defend murderers and rapists? Are terrible people deserving of the same defense rights as everyone else? In the interest of democracy and freedom, I believe the answer is yes. I do not think I could do the work of a criminal defense attorney, but I respect it and recognize that it is an important job that helps preserve our justice system.

Is it moral to fight for those who have robbed, raped, and killed? If you were to succeed in defending them and they were released… how would you feel if they were to go out and commit another crime? I often think of these things when I ponder my future in the law field. When Judge Scott Miller told me with a straight face that he had no qualms about defending the guilty because it was not his job to decide if the defendant is guilty or not, I was rather surprised by his answer. I suppose I wanted him to be uncomfortable in answering. I wanted him to struggle with his morality because I think a job like being a trial lawyer requires some philosophical thought regarding the nature of the job. But he didn’t. Although I’m certain there was at least one time in his life in which he grappled to defend a woman or a man, over the years he seems to have certainly become comfortable with his previous job as a lawyer. Is this how our justice system is supposed to work? I find it rather jarring that a guilty woman could be freed on account of “good story-telling” or an ill-informed or biased jury. It’s disturbing, and yet I’m not incredibly deterred from going into the field of law. My goal with the prison system is to stop the mass imprisonment of black men who are often targeted and policed at a greater rate than white men even though both races commit crimes at similar rates. The largest issue for me, personally, is that it is almost expected and fully legal to discriminate against former inmates. How do we expect a thief to not re-offend if we take away her source of income? We end up creating these situations for people in which they are put in a worse situation after jail so that they are forced to continue suffering even though they have already served their time. So, although the idea of having a guilty man walk is upsetting, I’m still interested in being involved in the justice and prison system in some capacity. I guess it takes every man and woman who becomes apart of the justice system to fully understand that they don’t always wear the white hat and some criminals don’t get served with justice and some innocent people do. I don’t know if I’m okay with that yet. But I do know that I’m glad that Lawrence got to walk free…

I had never thought about how conflicting it would be to be a defense attorney until Judge Miller talked about being a defense attorney at the Rose Cafe. You have to believe what your client tells you and you have to defend them even when you know they are guilty. Is it wrong to defend someone who is guilty? If it is your job then you really don’t have a choice. Someone has to defend them. One of the things that struck me the most is that when I was asking Judge Miller questions after the Cafe he said it was worse to be defending someone who is innocent especially when there is an abundance of evidence against them. Is it worse to have an innocent person put in jail or to have a guilty person go free? In my opinion, defending someone who is innocent would be much more stressful because if the defense attorney fails then the innocent person could be blamed for committing a crime that they did not actually commit. An innocent person would be sent to jail. It would be hard to sleep at night knowing that you were not able to prevent an innocent person from going to jail. The job of being a defense attorney is much more complex than just ‘defending the bad guys’ and listening to Judge Miller’s stories reminded me of that.

How often do you laugh and enjoy speaking of heavy issues? If you were there Wednesday night then you experienced this rare occasion. Judge Scott Miller, discussed heavy topics in a humorous light. Hearing about real cases that Judge Miller defended really helped me to understand fully the way our justice system works. One thing that I fear, but also get excited about is Jury duty. I’ve always been excited about one day serving on a jury and performing my duty as a citizen, but as Judge Miller described a jury, I was reminded of the bubble that we live in here at Cornell, and many other students probably do as well at other colleges. He described juries as uncaring, sometimes unintelligent. Judge Miller told us that one of the main points of being a successful defense attorney was relating and entertaining the jury. He really gave me a different perspective on our legal system, and all I can say is that I really hope I am never put in front of a jury.

A judge, a professor, and 20 students walk into an apartment… I promise it’s not a joke, it’s just how this week’s Rose Café started.

Judge Scott Miller came to speak about his job as a criminal defendant before he became a judge. We also talked about the US government and the New York Times’ shocking Op-Ed piece “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration”. This sparked a brilliant conversation where Judge Miller commented that from times of great struggle, America emerges stronger than before.

My friends and I headed back towards the dorm, and we had a two-hour conversation about current events here in the US. How the Trump administration has been working, the reaction of people around us after the election and how our lives changed, how the Republican party has changed over the years, feminism, the United States’ relationship with Puerto Rico this last decade, and some other stuff that I can’t recall. This week’s café invited opinions, conversation, and even a history lesson for me and my friends.

In the Rose Café talk, Defending the Guilty,  Judge Scott Miller discussed his time as a defense attorney, and some of the experiences he had defending clients accused of serious crimes. Scott talked about how, despite the “presumption of innocence”, many times the jury, and sometimes even the judge, had an inherit bias towards the defendant where they believed they were probably guilty right from the start. He said that even he sometimes believed his clients were guilty and he was taking on a lost cause. It was interesting though, that after he spent time looking into their lives and all the good things they have done, his mind changed. This goes to show that a single event or trait, usually a negative one, can often define a persons entire existence, even though it shouldn’t. The most interesting thing I thought he said though, was that in his mind as a lawyer, it does not matter whether his client actually committed the crime – it only matters whether the jury believe they did. This is interesting because he is basically saying that the point of a trial is not to uncover the truth, but instead to establish a perceived truth; what is plausibly true, or seems true to the jury, but is not necessarily the absolute truth. I found this to be fascinating, not just about his career, but about our legal system as a whole because it shows that someone can be sentenced for crimes that they did not necessarily commit, but for which the jury believes they have committed. Although I do not have a better alternative for the search of truth, I am skeptical that this is the best and most just way to do so.

Last Wednesday night I attended a Rose Cafe given by Judge Scott Miller. A particular topic of fascination for the students in the room was how Judge Miller had felt defending the “guilty” during his criminal defense attorney days. His response basically came down to saying that regardless of whether they had actually committed the crime they were accused of, they could not be punished for it unless they were found guilty through evidence that permitted the state to punish them. So rather than punishing someone for committing a crime, we are punishing people if we can prove that they committed the crime. Regardless of whether the person in question has privately admitted to guilt, they are only subject to state punishment if it can be proven.

It makes sense, in a way, considering the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused, but it’s still odd to think that objectively guilty people can escape punishment because there is no proof. If you are their attorney and you know for a fact that they committed the crime, they have admitted their guilt to you, then it is really in your hands on whether or not they will be punished for it. I don’t really know what the right answer is here, but these are the thoughts and questions that came to my mind after our Rose Cafe.

The Rose Cafe this past week hosted by Scott Miller proved to be very thought provoking with regards to our justice and legal system in the U.S.. One of Judge Miller’s most salient talking points was in response to a question he was asked. In short, the question probed as to how he morally justifies defending someone he thinks is guilty of a crime. He responded by saying that morality and justice in the legal system are not one and the same. In his view, he might perceive something as being morally wrong, but that does not mean that the individual is legally “guilty” and the prosecution can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. He also made it clear that he took and oath of responsibility to this viewpoint and he feels it would be more “wrong” to violate this oath than his moral consciousness.

I found this concept to be very intriguing and insightful about the legal and justice system. It attests to the shortcomings of the system – it was created in our country with the intentions of distinguishing and reinforcing what is morally right and wrong, but often fails to do so. Or, in an alternate perspective,  points out that perhaps there is no right and wrong, but rather perceptions of these things, which can vary according to perspective. Thus, the legal system attempts to clarify these distinctions and execute justice accordingly using the evidential “burden of proof”.

Although this opens up a larger dialogue on morality and justice that I am unprepared to address at this point, the talk by Judge Miller certainly challenged me to think and I look forward to speaking to him at future Rose House events.

What I enjoyed most about Judge Miller’s talk yesterday was how he shined a light on aspects of our legal system that are rarely even thought about, let alone discussed, by a large facet of the population. As someone who has been thinking about pursuing a legal career for a long time and who is applying to law school this year, I often think about what kind of legal career I want to pursue or what kind of lawyer I could see myself being. I want to pursue a career in public service, and a question I often grapple with is what is it like to be a public defender and to be put in a position in which you must zealously fight for someone who you know is guilty. Indeed, I often ask myself the question that Judge Miller said he was often asked at dinner parties: Would I be able to sleep at night knowing that I fought to get a not-guilty verdict for someone who was in fact guilty? Accordingly, I found the answer Judge Miller offered to this question particularly insightful. I had never before considered that moral guilt and guilt as determined by the legal system are two different things and that the fact that someone is morally guilty does not free the government from having to meet their burden of proof. Indeed, Judge Miller’s distinction between moral guilt and guilt as determined by the legal system made me consider that ensuring that the government has to put up a fight in each and every case to meet its burden of proof could actually have positive ramifications on the legal system as a whole. If every defender zealously defends their clients regardless of their characteristics, criminal history, or the crime with which they are charged, then prosecutors know that, regardless of how easy it may be to convince a jury that a defendant with a certain history or with certain personal characteristics is guilty, they are still going to have to meet their burden of proof because the defender they are opposing is going to ensure that the jury does not feel right convicting a person on the basis of stereotypes or circumstance alone. Accordingly, prosecutors might think twice about charging a person with a certain crime not because there is strong evidence suggesting his or her guilt but simply because he or she fits the bill of someone would seems like they would have committed that crime. Indeed, when prosecutors can count on defenders making them work hard in every trial, fewer innocent people may end up being charged with crimes in the first place.