Last week Wednesday,  I had the opportunity to hear Scott Miller, the head of maintenance for West Campus, speak about his job. It’s amazing how much work and care goes into making sure that the people who live on West campus are safe and that the buildings are in the best of conditions.

One thing that stood out from the talk was a story he recounted. A few maintenance people on Central campus wanted to take power from residence halls on West Campus to rewire some Central campus buildings. This would have caused there to be no electricity in the halls at night time, which would not only have been inconvenient but would have been dangerous as well. Scott kept them from taking the power because he was looking out for the kids who lived there.

It’s amazing how many people at Cornell take care of us and look out for us without us realizing it. Having someone like Scott take care of where I live so I don’t have to is a real gift. I don’t have to worry if the electricity goes, or y plumbing doesn’t work because there will always be someone to fix it for me o West campus. So I’m grateful to Scott and the rest of the maintenance team. Thank you!

As a student who spend most of the time on stem subject, I used to think of the world as clear and defined, especially when it comes to law enforcement and sentence. Since there’re written laws, all we need to do is to sentence accordingly. However, this talk with judge Miller changed my former perspective and made me realize that life isn’t just right or wrong, there’s so much in the middle, and when we are making a judgment, we need not only consider the surface and come to a conclusion of right or wrong, because there’re so many other things about them that we don’t know.

Also, as an international student, there’s a lot of the American laws and the citizen’s right that I wasn’t familiar with, so this talk is very educating in telling me about the right that I have. For example, judge Miller mentioned a case that two policemen searched a person walked by just because they smell Majorana on him, despite the fact that he rejected the search. Even though they found it in his jacket that he put aside, this can’t be used as an evidence on the court, because they didn’t have a concrete and supported reason before searching him.

Overall, I found this talk really different from the past talks, partly because judge Miller is our alumni and he has so many interesting stories to share with us. The talk made me start to think about the human aspect in how the court rule the matters, and how the judge comes to a decision. I’m also inspired by the hopes that judge Miller mentioned at the end of this talk, about two main things in the society that are awaiting for our generation to solve, which are education and healthcare.

When attending the Rose Cafe event that Judge Miller held, I became aware of the numerous factors that go into making a final decision regarding the sentence of a convicted person. I knew that factors such as their background, past criminal experiences, and extent of evidence are particularly important when determining a sentence. However, what I had not know was the extent to which humanitarian factors affect the outcome of the case. Society normally views judges as impartial, law abiding people, atleast that’s what their job was. However, Judge Miller give insight into the copious amount of power that judges have in shaping the rest of a person life so factors such as empathy, and if the accused feels remorse and is willing to pledge to be a better member of society, are all factors that play into the final outcome and decision.

The idea that there are a plethora of factors that influence the verdict of a case without having a system that quantisizes these factors is interesting. Although judges are said to be impartial and follow the law strictly, the question begs the degree to which certain “humanitarian” factors hold a greater weight against certain “factual” factors and whether the subjective discrepancy that can occur between these groups is the reason for the growing number of court case appeals. I believe that although it can be difficult to assign numerical values to the diverse cases that are seen, the resistance to do can pose increasing questions regarding the required objectivity of a judge’s decisions.  In fact, numerical scores from one case can be carried through with other cases to expedite court case processes since many times court cases take up a lot of time, which would be helpful to jurors. The extended length of the court cases I believe is partly due to the fact that there aren’t formalized systems that are used, besides relying on precedent cases.

Prior to this Rose Cafe, my image of a judge was, in hindsight, slightly over-exaggerated: a faceless purveyor of justice whose cold shadow, cast down from their impossibly high seat, looms unforgivingly over every courtroom in which he/she sat. In reality, this is probably accurate half the time – as Judge Miller said, a judge must, in some capacity, be emotionally removed from the case in front of them. “[We’re] not there to be annoyed,” he reminded us. Every time he steps into the courtroom, someone’s life could be resting entirely in his hands.

However, it’s easy – at least for me – to forget that victims and criminals (or defendants, since Judge Miller also pointed out that the problematic connotations of the word “criminal”) are fellow people. They were born into the same world, walked the same streets, and maybe even once dreamed the same dreams as me. I believe a concept Judge Miller spoke about, and one that is commonly heard, is that in the courtroom, human lives are often intersecting in the most unforgettable, tragic way possible. In the courtroom, all of their past hopes and memories are suddenly irrelevant in the face of their uncertain futures.

One of the cases Judge Miller recounted was of a young girl who had physically fought her would-be rapist for twenty minutes, who was in turn apparently surprised by her resilience. If I had read about it on the news, I probably would’ve felt, at most, a pang of pity and sympathy for the victim, and immense anger at the attacker. However, listening to Judge Miller describe it in person, I was suddenly overwhelmed by the realization that the fight lasted for twenty minutes – so far, I’ve spent twenty minutes on this blog post. I couldn’t imagine fighting someone for that long, or what would be going on in my mind. Would I only think of survival? Would I remember past regrets? Would I think of my family and friends and all the trials I’ve already overcome? Would I think of all the things I once saw myself doing five years from now? Would anything matter besides surviving those twenty minutes? The same goes for the rapist – what drove him to commit such a horrific act? What drove him to continue attempting to commit that act, even after the victim demonstrated, by fighting back, that she was another human being who had a life to live? Did he ever, even for a second, think about her?

How does a judge learn to sit there, high above the throne, and even begin to process all of those all-too-human feelings while making a just, informed decision?

Obviously, there must be a line drawn between humanizing someone, and excusing or being an apologist for them. The attacker committed a serious crime and deserved punishment, regardless of whatever good he has done in the past. Nothing he did before, or does after the attack, will ever come as close to defining him in the public eye as this single incident. Perhaps that’s good or bad; that’s not for me to decide.

However, I will no longer view criminal trials and court cases as stiff, detached, and – heavens forbid – boring events. Judge Miller has reminded me that, when you strip down a court case to its bare bones and lay it out flat, all you’ll find is raw, human emotion.

“I just signed your death warrant.”

Before this talk, I had already watched the video of Judge Rosemarie Aquilina sentencing Larry Nassar. I thought her statement towards Nassar was perfect and not once did I think about how as a judge, she should remain “professional”. Judge Miller had some pretty interesting points and I do agree that maybe she shouldn’t have rubbed salt into the wound. Nassar deserved everything that was said to him in court, but as a judge, Judge Aquilina should’ve stuck with more impartial words.

This brought me to the thought that it’s pretty hard to be an unbiased judge. You have to remain impartial and think about cases not through your mind, but as a totally different person.

I don’t have extensive knowledge of the legal process outside of what I’ve seen on TV, so one of the things that surprised me the most in Judge Miller’s talk was his description of the factors that go into a sentencing decision.  I knew that judges were responsible for making choices about sentencing within the range or options listed by the law, but for some reason I always imagined that those choices were governed by fairly specific guidelines having to do with the particulars of the crime committed.  Judge Miller, however, said that he has to take into account not only the nature of the crime, but also the attitude of the convicted, the stance of the victim, and the circumstances of the convicted person’s life and upbringing.  For instance, he tends to be harsher on people who have had privileged upbringings because he feels that they’ve had plenty of opportunities to make better choices and had more to lose, as opposed to someone who may have lacked financial resources, education, and stability.  These are far more subjective metrics than I was expecting to hear.  Law is so often depicted as a watertight system of intricate details and precise considerations that it’s in some ways uncomfortable to see its more inherently arbitrary aspects highlighted.  On the other hand, I now have a better understanding of both the power and responsibility that a judge holds in the courtroom.

Another interesting topic of discussion was the recent Larry Nassar case, and specifically the judge’s widely publicized comment that she had “signed his death warrant” after sentencing.  When asked about our opinion on the matter, the attitude around the room was one of vague ambivalence.  “Well, it was unprofessional, but she wasn’t exactly wrong…” and “Well, she shouldn’t have said it, but Nassar was definitely irritating her…”  That’s pretty much what I thought when I saw it as well.  Judge Miller surprised me with the vehemence of his response that the comment was absolutely appalling.  I think most people are in agreement that the comment was unprofessional.  However, the conviction had been made, the sentence had been passed, and I don’t think very many people are going to come out in defense of the feelings of a child molester.  The average person might think the comment was unnecessary and theatrical, but as another student pointed out, it’s hard to see how it could have done any major harm either.  Judge Miller, however, did see the statement as harmful.  He saw it as a terrible insult to the honor that being a judge should represent.  To him, a judge letting personal feelings impact courtroom behavior or taking a perverse joy in sentencing is a step in a dangerous direction.

Judge Miller went on to discuss his distaste for the national incarceration system and the importance of judging people fairly rather than by the worst things they’ve been accused of, or even the worst things they’ve done.  Overall, the thing that I think is most important to take away from this talk is Judge Miller’s insistence on dignity and empathy in all of the scenarios he discussed, which I was very impressed with.

From listening to his talk last Wednesday, it appears that Judge Scott Miller has a similar opinion on the word “criminal” that I have on the word “lazy.” Both of us believe that such a personality trait is so rare as to essentially not exist. Most people who commit crimes are not like the evil criminal masterminds that are portrayed in movies, always plotting their next crime, just as most people who fail to complete a task or try to find a shortcut are not completely devoid of a work ethic. Usually in both of these situations (and more), there is some sort of external factor at play, whether it be a life of poverty, mental illness, exhaustion, and more. However, these external factors that influence our behavior are often hidden from an outsider’s point of view. We might be aware of the external factors that affect our own lives, but we are unlikely to know about the ones that affect the lives of the people around us. This leads to what is referred to as the fundamental attribution error–the tendency to place blame on internal factors (such as a person’s personality) when explaining the behavior of others, while placing blame on external factors for our own behavior. For example, most people would agree that they get annoyed if someone cuts them off while driving. It seems like they’re a jerk, right? Yet who has not done something similar when running late for something important? Yes, you just cut someone off, but it was only because you were running late to that meeting. While it is fairly understandable how the fundamental attribution error results–we are unable to experience the lives of others–it is important, as Judge Miller alluded to with his discussion on the word “criminal,” that we try to refrain from making this error as much as possible. The vast majority of people who act in a negative way (criminality, laziness, cutting someone off, etc.) do not actually have a terrible personality, but are instead being influenced by factors that we are unaware of. So next time someone does something that upsets you in some way, try to consider that they might not be a bad person after all.

During tonight’s Rose Cafe, a student asked Judge Scott Miller what he thought about Judge Rosemarie Aquilina’s remarks to Larry Nassar during his sentencing. Prior to hearing Judge Miller’s opinion on the matter, I agreed with quite a bit of people that Judge Aquilina’s remarks were warranted given the horrifying events that occurred for years to young Olympian girls. Judge Miller proceeded to shock me by saying that he was appalled by Judge Aquilina’s reaction in front of the court. He began to explain the importance that anybody with power has to conduct themselves in an appropriate fashion lest he/she begin to abuse their power.

This response left me on the fence: on one hand, I feel like Judge Aquilina’s reaction could have been more violent and unprofessional and it still wouldn’t have been enough in comparison to all the wrong that Nassar did. But, on the other hand, I feel like I am in agreeance with Judge Miller: Judge Aquilina should have had more decorum in the courtroom, especially, given the fact that she has all of the power. This talk with Judge Miller really made me think about the implications of having a position of power and the importance of proper conduct when exercising that power. This is something that, in my opinion, people think about in theory but in practice, it’s hard to remember this especially given how emotionally charged situations can be.

During Wednesday’s Rose Café, Judge Scott Miller came in to talk to us. He discussed how he sentences people. He discussed how he considers how the person grew up and their history. Before the café, I never thought about what it was like to be a judge and having to make these decisions. I did not think about how a judge would go about sentencing a person for a crime. Sentencing someone to jail is not something that can be taken lightly. It was amazing to hear about Judge Miller’s thought process when sentencing a person. I also realized that I have not followed any court cases all the way from trial to sentencing.  After the café, I realized that I should pay more attention to cases because they have impacts our society. Furthermore, it was also interesting that he discussed changing education and healthcare in America. I agree with Judge Miller that the education and healthcare systems need to be changed. Education and healthcare are constantly talked about as issues. Although I do not have a clear idea about how to change them, I want to be in some way involved in the change.

Last week I went to a Rose Cafe where we got the opportunity to speak with Judge Miller. One interesting comment that he made is that nobody is born evil. This is something that we all know, but find hard to apply. For example, when you hear about someone murdering or hurting another person, that concept is not necessarily the first thought that pops into your head. Instead, we think that the criminal has to be a terrible person. One reason for that is that we have to believe, for our own mental wellbeing, that only an evil person could commit such a horrible crime.  The thought that a regular person could do something so awful is pretty terrifying because it makes the world seem random and unpredictable. But if we could move past our mental blocks, maybe we could find a way to reduce these tragedies. For example, maybe we could support more programs to mentor at-risk youth. I know that a lot of these programs already exist, but we could certainly expand them.

In this Rose Cafe event, Judge Scott Miller came to speak to us about his job and answer questions that we had for him.  What I found most interesting about the discussion was his explanation of how the public often forgets the humanity of every person on trial: he told us that most of his cases involved people who had lived in poverty or an inhospitable environment and didn’t know any better from the petty crimes they were committing; he also explained that we will most likely judge someone for one, minor crime that was committed when in reality he/she is a relatively decent person.  I also thought it was interesting how he was often conflicted with determining a person’s sentence because he wanted to be just as well as fair in administering a sentence.  This discussion allowed for me to gain more respect for judges because I realized that they are responsible for determining someone’s fate–jail time, etc.–by pondering what they think is necessary to hold the person accountable while also keeping the public’s safety in mind.

Judge Scott Miller led both an informative and stimulating conversation on justice and what it is like being a judge in the city of Ithaca. As a future lawyer, I took away many lessons from Judge Miller, such as the idea of not labeling all people who commit crimes as criminals, but as people who made a mistake, since wrong actions do not always define a person. However, as interesting as the discussion was, it was Judge Miller’s point about healthcare and education that resonated with me the most.

According to Judge Miller, the United States has two main issues: lack of access to universal healthcare and lack of quality universal education. Once these problems are addressed, Judge Miller stated, the country can begin to repair other issues within our society, such as racism. I agree with Judge Miller’s assessment that universal healthcare and education are some of the largest hurdles our country faces. I also agree with Judge Miller that we as an American society need to put more value on healthcare and education, rather than spending money on expensive wars and incarcerating people. To me, healthcare and education are human rights. Unfortunately, the United States has a great imbalance when it comes to valuing and funding such vital programs, which has created a significant amount of inequality and has negatively impacted the most vulnerable people like minorities and the poor. Judge Miller made a profound point when he stated that many citizens do not argue about spending money on wars and incarcerating people who commit crimes, but get upset when the government wants to fund healthcare or education. I firmly believe that we need to put more money and value into our broken healthcare and educational systems if the United States wants to continue to be a global role model.

Just like Judge Miller, I do not have a solution to fixing our healthcare and educational systems. However, it is up to me and every other person to stand up for these issues, and many more, by pressuring lawmakers to prioritize and act on these important problems. Recognizing a problem is the first step in finding a solution, so it is up to us as humans to create a culture that values healthcare and education, not wars and incarceration.

Last Wednesday evening I had the pleasure of hearing local Judge and Cornell alumnus Scott Miller talk about his experience on the job. While I find myself very interested in the judicial system, I had never before had the opportunity to talk with a judge. Fortunately, Judge Miller had some tremendous insight on how to correct problems facing America and did a tremendous job answering questions from students.

Judge Miller explained that he viewed the lack of health care and the education system as the two biggest problems in America. He believes that education would keep kids out of prisons and ironically, if the country just put a bit more money into the education system for young people, it would save a lot of money that the government spends to imprison them later. I agree with this statement, as I have seen many kids from my area who dropped out of school end up in trouble. Judge Miller also talked about adopting Canada’s healthcare system.

Fortunately, I was able to ask Judge Miller about his opinion of the Larry Nassar court hearing and the judge’s behavior. In my opinion, I found her behavior to be somewhat excessive, but I could not find myself willing to side with Mr. Nassar in anyway, so I accepted it. Judge Miller had a much different viewpoint, which I respected and found very interesting. He believes that judges should understand their role in the court and not abuse power. Judge Miller explained how hard sentencing someone to prison is and how he is never happy to do it. I look forward to hearing from more people involved in the legal system of the United States to explore my interest in law.

I had previously attended Judge Miller’s Rose Cafe discussion last semester and found that his stories and experiences were extremely intriguing and thought provoking, bringing up issues such as equality, racism, and moral questions for discussion. In this discussion as well, I was particularly interested in his comments about how to solve greater societal problems and differences in values.

Judge Miller explained that the two solutions to many societal problems are universal healthcare and education. Stating that if people are properly educated from a young age, then less people would commit crimes in the future. This would result in lower costs of keeping a large prison system. I felt that this has applications to our own lives as well. Solving problems early on can prevent greater problems in the future and could lead to better opportunities in the future.

I think that Judge Miller’s practicality and humble nature are important characteristics that I could learn from and apply to my life. In his position, Judge Miller has presided over a great variety of cases and had experience as a defense attorney. Despite his important role in the judicial system, he remains humble and open minded towards all of the cases he presides over. He embodies many of the virtues of the judicial system, and I hope to be able to apply his open mindedness to my own life as well.

We had a very interesting discussion on a quote below from Toni Morrison’s book The Origin of Others, on themes that dominate to this day our nation: race, fear, borders, mass movement of people, and the desire of belonging. Why does the presence of Others make us so afraid? Why we cannot celebrate rather diversity, multi-culturalism, and learn from others rather than fear them? Morrison’s book is based on her 2016 lectures at Harvard on “the literature of belonging”. Below is a quote from the book that illustrates the largely obscured humanity of slaves and the power manipulation strategy used by slave owners to justify economic exploitation:

“The necessity of rendering the slave a foreign species appears to be a desperate attempt to confirm one’s own self as normal to conform to society’s norms. The urgency of distinguishing between those who belong to the human race and those who are decidedly non-human is so powerful the spotlight turns away and shines not on the object of degradation but on the creator. Even assuming exaggeration by the slaves, the sensibility of slave owners is gothic. It’s as though they are shouting, “I am not a beast! I’m not a beast! I torture the helpless to prove I am not weak.”. The danger of sympathizing with the stranger is the possibility of becoming a stranger. To lose one’s racial-ized rank is to lose one’s own valued and enshrined difference”.

The need to confirm one’s humanity while committing inhumane acts is key, according to Morrison. By convincing oneself that there is some sort of natural delineation between the individual and the Other (someone less than human), one attempts to justify their “torture” against the “helpless”; a contradiction that illustrates the need for the “spotlight” to shine on the “creator” so that they can understand their actions.

Morrison’s book is inspirational as it demonstrates that racial prejudice is an unnatural and a learned phenomenon, and that we should all remember that there is after all only one human race!

Hearing Judge Miller discuss his line of work and its impact was fascinating and helped me realize how integral judges are to politics and society. I also realized that although judges have the very serious job of maintaining the law, they view individuals who commit crimes as real people rather than criminals and take into account their upbringings and attitudes when deciding sentences. Judge Miller humanized the judicial process for me.

I also enjoyed hearing his opinions on current events such as the Larry Nassar case because I read the news and form opinions on what’s going on in the world around me but lack an in depth understanding of the law. It was easy for me to be 100% supportive of the judge dealing with this case without having a complete context of the roles and responsibilities which as judge takes on. His opinions complicated my perspective on this topic.

Judge Miller touched on the subject of the opioid epidemic briefly, offering some long-term solutions to the issue. I am from a city which is at the center of the opioid epidemic and having this discussion made me realize that I want to learn more about this subject and short-term actions taken against this issues, whether through personal research or hearing an expert speak on the subject.

In addition, as a liberal person I already agreed with almost everything that Judge Miller had to say. In the future I think it could be really interesting to hear from a professor or expert of their field who has a conservative point of view, as I don’t know much about this perspective.

My favorite part of Judge Miller’s talk in Rose Cafe was the interesting point about the “pendulum” of time that we currently live in. There have been only a handful of extremely critical times in American history where big change is imminent–and this is one of them. Our generation has a lot of power to influence the future direction of this country and direct the changing tides. I thought this was a very optimistic way to finish the Rose Cafe on Wednesday with an outlook on the potential of our generation to steer history into a better direction. I also thought Judge Miller’s observation about the two most pressing issues in our country was spot on–if we can provide equitable healthcare and education to everyone, this would significantly level the playing field for all people in this country to have access to the same opportunities.

My high school mock trial team had a running joke that being a judge was the best job in the world because you got to sit in a comfy chair all day while everyone treats you like a god. Scott Miller’s talk really showed that we were probably overstating it. Over the course of his talk, Scott Miller really showed that having that kind of power over people and the ability to set precedents like People v. Brukner is something that should never be taken lightly. It’s a position that can have really strong restorative power, and it’s important to take responsibility in that. I enjoyed his discussion of restorative justice and the notation of the importance of not just punishing for the sake of punishing in the case of nonviolent crimes.

I slightly disagree with his idea that all of our domestic problems could be solved by considering health care and education a human right and acting accordingly (i.e. making addressing both of these issues a priority) I agree that health care and education are a human right, and that not considering them as such causes many problems in United States. However, I feel this outlook ignores more basic problems. Americans still face lack of affordable and safe housing, food insecurity and a growing income disparity. These problems are more immediate concerns. People’s right to a living wage, a safe place to live, and food is more necessary. It can be said that housing and food insecurity are part of health care, but I think it’s important to consider them initially as steps of prevention. The fact that people don’t have clean access to clean water, food, and housing in this country is a bigger problem. I agreed with his point about the needless focus on military spending and cases where funding military operations was given almost unquestionably while citizens go bankrupt trying to pay for necessary medical treatment without private insurance. Near the end, he added a point about us being lucky to live in a time of upheaval that could change the course of history. I don’t feel very lucky.

These complaints are mostly nitpicks. I was really glad to have the opportunity to hear from him about his experiences. I missed the meeting last semester because of scheduling conflicts, so I was really glad to be able to go this semester.

This week at Rose Cafe Judge Miller brought up a very interesting point about fixing a lot of problems in our society. In order to attempt to tackle over issues we must first ensure universal healthcare and a quality education for everyone as a basic right. Universal healthcare is quite a controversial topic but I think a lot of problems would be solved by introducing universal healthcare. I think a lot of times people fail to seek preventative care and treatment because healthcare under a system of private insurance is expensive and often times they can’t afford it. This seems to be a political debate of a lot of interest and I personally am not very well versed in healthcare however it do think it is not a privilege it’s a right. Now onto the point on education. I know this a topic of importance to most of you considering you are  students at an ivy league university (yes, I know people think we are a fake ivy). You didn’t start out here though. You started out in elementary school then went to middle school and then high school. (At least I did, I suppose that depends on where you grew up). Personally I attended public school and received a great education. However, some people aren’t that lucky when it comes to going to public school. Their schools are underfunded and overcrowded. They are receive a lower quality education because of where they live. They receive often times a subpar education because they are economically disadvantaged. Everyone should have the right to a quality education. The composition of Cornell would be completely different if everyone who went to public school was afforded the same education. The majority of Cornell wouldn’t be from Westchester, Long Island or New Jersey. (There would still be a high percentage probably because legacy kids but it would hopefully be slightly more diverse.) I think fixing healthcare and our education system are expensive but worthwhile investments.

While I know a few people in the group had heard Judge Miller speak before, this was my first time attending a talk with him. In all honesty, I did not expect such a level of humility and grounding from a professional in a high position of power. But Judge Miller proved to me, and hopefully to the group at the cafe, that some people in power do not bat a blind eye towards the struggles of others.

In his definition of a  criminal, Judge Miller was very hesitant to impose this title on anyone. He believes that unless an agent is constantly considering their next crime, they are a person. I couldn’t agree more that the title of criminal blurs one’s status as a human, and only inspires further heinous acts. And I hope that other judges hold a similar sentiment.

However, my opinions diverged when Judge Miller went against the judge presiding over Larry Nassar’s case. While I do believe that a certain aura of professionalism is necessary when sentencing someone to over 170 years in prison, all judges are put on the bench by either the people or a representative of the people. And if the people who brought this specific judge into her position thought that her methods, means, and opinions are respectable, who are we, a group of students across the country, to deny her legitimacy? Overall, the talk was very informative and I thank all those who attended.

This Wednesday Judge Miller came to speak  at the Rose Café. I had attended Judge Millers Café last semester and found it extremely interesting. Last semester, Judge Miller told of a recent landmark ruling of his regarding unreasonable search and seizure as well as many anecdotal accounts of the court room.

This Wednesday night we spoke again about Judge Millers rulings that have now been upheld not only in New York but it was even referenced in the Virgin Islands! The most interesting part of our conversation lied in Judge Millers theories on the ills of the nation.

Judge Miller theorized that if two major problems were to be amended in American society, virtually all other national struggles and concerns would dissipate. The first problem is our lack of access to health care. the second problem is the differing quality of and access to education in the U.S. Judge Miller believes if the country can accomplish universal access to healthcare and standardized, universal access to education then this will provide the catalyst to remedy drug and conduct issues, routine incarceration, aids, racism, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc…..

I am not positive how I feel about Judge Millers theory involving the magic remedy to humankinds struggles. Even so I accept the blaringly obvious importance of these two major national shortcomings and need to address them.

Last semester I attended the Rose Cafe with Judge Miller and was impressed by his stories and the insight he offered into his work. Thus, I did not hesitate to return to hear him speak during this week’s Cafe.

Although some of the major themes he addressed previously–including not only judging a person based on one or two poor actions or characteristics– were invoked again during this iteration, he also provided another interesting  summation of what he views as the two major problems in America: the lack of universal health care and universal access to quality education. I appreciated that he spoke to the connection such structural inequities that people face as a result of the lack of education and healthcare and the justice system. For instance, he pointed out that some people willingly spending money on incarcerating individuals who might have made better decisions had they been given stronger educational opportunities as children for success outside of crime. Yet some of those people who willingly funnel money into the criminal justice system might also be opposed to increasing funding to education or supporting universal health care which would equip those traditionally disadvantaged people to lead healthier lives with more potential for positive growth.

Similarly, I thought his explanation and discussion of “restorative justice” were interesting. He explained that this meant making case decisions with the hopes of empowering victims and helping those who committed the crime learn from and grow out of their actions to strengthen the community.

I left this Rose Cafe with a deeper appreciation for the role judges have in exerting their influence and power to not simply feed into what I see as a flawed prison system.

Tonight’s Rose Cafe with Judge Miller opened my eyes to a perspective of the criminal justice system that I had never experienced before. The media and entertainment often shows (usually dramatized) accounts of detectives and lawyers solving mysteries and standing their ground in court, but I was unfamiliar with a judge’s viewpoint. In an engaging discussion that ranged from marijuana to the #MeToo movement, Judge Miller discussed his experiences in cases from civil and family disputes to rape and murder. He mentioned a case where he ruled that the scent of marijuana was not probable cause for searching a person’s body or possessions, a ruling that set a precedent for all of New York State. It was surprising to hear that a case decided in Ithaca had ramifications for the entire state and it was a reminder of the importance of the judiciary in protecting the rights of citizens. This was an ideal that Judge Miller referred to again at the end of the discussion, when he reaffirmed that the safety of a democratic state is preserved by an independent judiciary.

Another notable part of the discussion was when Judge Miller discussed his personal feelings regarding the responsibility and sanctity of a judge’s position. His comments on the necessity of a judge to be humble and professional impressed upon me the reality that judges have final say in sentencing someone who is convicted of a crime, and to what extent this sentence will impact their life. He also discussed his objections to the current prison system, and how providing universal healthcare and education would significantly lower crime rates. Finally, Judge Miller concluded by saying he believed it is an exciting time to be a young adult, given the political turmoil of the world right now. While I disagree with the choice of the word “exciting,” his statement reminded me that we are living through a time that will likely constitute a turning point in world history, and it is important to remember our power as protesters and voters and citizens concerned about their nation.

The first Rose Cafe of the semester featured our very own Cornell alumnus Judge Scott Miller, who currently presides over trial-level criminal and civil matters in the City of Ithaca. He is the first judge I’ve had the chance to meet, and I loved the stories he shared with us and the discussions that they sparked at the end of the hour. I admire his levelheadedness and ability to assume the role of an impartial and impersonal judge who brings justice to our town. Regardless of his job, Judge Miller is a fantastic person who fights for both the victims of crimes, and those who have committed them by refusing to label them as criminals by default; he fights for the humanity in everyone. We also touched on the recent Larry Nassar case, and debated the professionalism of the judge in her crude statement when signing Larry’s “death warrant.” After Judge Miller explained his reasons for criticism, I understood his perspective a lot more. However, I still support the judge’s statement as a strong message to the public that sexual abusers will finally get the punishment they deserve.