Advancing the discussion or making the decision...

I recently had an opportunity to participate in "mock trials".  In this instance I was a judge.  The cases, the facts, the circumstances, all of that...is irrelevant. 

What is relevant is what it taught me about myself and what it could teach you about yourself. 

First of all, i recommend that anyone who has the opportunity to be involved int he legal process in a "mock" or "practice" capacity, do so.  It is a wondeful opportunity to put yourself in someone else's shoes.  You hate lawyers - try being one.  You think judges are activists - listen to arguments and don't participate or bring your bias' with you.  I had no idea going in how rich an experience it could be. 

Second, participating in the process as a judge taught me something very important.  I am an advocate by trade.  I tend to push a certain position.  I try to persuade people to see things the way I, or more precisely the way my clients, see them.  I do not always succeed.  And many times folks say to me things like "wait until you are the judge" or "if only you could make the decision".  I had this vague understanding that these statements did not reflect the reality of either my job or the judges, but I could not put my finger on the issue. 

Well, I was a judge for mock trials.  What an eye opener!  I realized that I was NOT an advocate.  I had to listen to the arguments handed to me.  The facts I knew were the facts AS PRESENTED.  This is extremely important.  I do come with my own bias and my own beliefs.  But no matter what anyone says, the more important issue is what evidence is presented - and proven. 

I wanted to ask questions.  I wanted to lead the witness.  I wanted to help the prosecutor, I wanted to help the defense.  But I knew that my role was to let them do their jobs and make a decision based on what was presented.  I knew I had to be fair and let other people do their job. 

This was an eye opener.  Your decision is based on the job other people do. 

Not only that, but it solidified for me why I never wanted to be a judge.  As a judge, you rule on what is presented.  True, you are the ultimate arbiter.  True, you can skew the law one way or the other.  True enough, the judge can be activist or strict constructionist. 

HOWEVER, the judge only has the case before them to act on.  It is the lawyer, the prosecutor, the defense and the witnesses that control the conversation.  They are the ones the add the words to the ultimate decision by the judge.  Even the law clerks will start with the arguments and the evidence proven and presented by the parties.  No matter what your bias, you have to start somewhere.

What I realized is that I want to influence the conversation.  I want to produce and hopefully prove the evidence.  I want to make and hopefully persuade as to the argument.  I want to push the boundaries of the boxes in a certain direction.  I am not interested in negotiating the competing issues and finding the ultimate solution.  That is a societal decision based on the law, the judges viewpoint, the skill of the the person making the case, etc.  But the opportunity to provide a viewpoint......that is priceless.