Having a conversation with Judge Scott Miller was an amazing experience because I don’t often interact with people who work in the judicial system. Thus, this session was incredibly insightful into how a judge/former defense attorney operates. Television is not exactly a great depiction of real life after all. We discussed a wide variety of topics but one of the main ones was defending a client who you suspect or been told by the client that he or she is guilty. I personally believe that the attorney should always give the client the benefit of the doubt because he or she may not actually be guilty of a crime. There are different types of guilts after all: moral, survivor, legal, etc. Legal guilt is the one that is important that can only be determined in the court of law, not by an attorney. The attorney should merely play his role in the system, defending the client to the best of his or her ability. Judge Miller points out that it is arguably better to not send a guilty person to prison than to send an innocent person to prison. I think it is a good thing that our legal system tilts towards the accused because of that reason. There are consequences to this of course and I admire Judge Miller’s tenacity and will to go through this for so long. Making major decisions or being the “gatekeeper” to a decision that can irrevocably change a person’s life is an awesome and overwhelming power if not handled properly. I also enjoyed hearing him talk about the more theoretical aspects of his job, e.g., judicial elections and the correspondence effect on independence. Judges should be appointed in my opinion because it insulates them from public opinion. If an individual is qualified, then we must give him or her the tools to be successful and allowing them to be independent will be key for a functioning justice system.

I was surprised to hear that New York judges have a bit more discretion in the punishments that they hand out compared to other states but I suppose the concept of discretion makes sense if you think about it. Incarceration is most likely not the answer to all alleged crimes and there are probably more productive ways to channel an individual’s mistakes into something good. For example, they sentence them to community service or something like that. I appreciate the nuance that Judge Miller, and hopefully other judges, has when tackling and rendering a verdict on a case. Of course, the letter of the law is always obeyed, but how that verdict is meted out can differ on case-by-case basis. Being a judge is not an easy job as I discuss earlier and I think it is remarkable that they can do this day in, day out.  This was a wonderful discussion and I really enjoyed my time during the session.