We can improve juvenile justice while protecting public safety

Florida’s policy of “direct filing” juveniles into adult court has become a hotly debated part of an ongoing national discussion pitting criminal justice reform against calls for “law and order.”

This is a false choice. A sensible direct-file policy can satisfy the need for public safety while rehabilitating offenders under 18 who can be transformed into productive, lawabiding citizens. In Palm Beach County, we recently announced a 45 percent decrease from last year in the number of juveniles who were direct filed into adult court. In our office, we require two separate, experienced prosecutors to approve the filing of adult charges against a juvenile. We give extra scrutiny to these decisions because a prosecutor’s office has immense power to forever alter someone’s life, and so we must get it right every time.

The number one goal for every state attorney is public safety. As such, we must not create adult criminals out of nonviolent youthful offenders who can be turned around by juvenile sanctions. By focusing direct file solely on violent criminals and habitual offenders, our communities become safer. Indeed, direct file rates have decreased statewide by 42 percent since 2011, and juvenile crime has decreased by 34 percent during the same period. Statewide, only 3.2 percent of all youth arrested are currently transferred to adult court.

Moreover, these figures do not include the thousands of youths who receive civil citations for minor offenses such as shoplifting. Florida’s civil citation programs are a success story, as juveniles who receive civil citations are neither arrested nor referred to a State Attorney’s office for prosecution, and have no criminal record if they complete the program successfully.

One important caveat to state policymakers: The marked improvement in our direct file numbers can be undone by proposals to remove direct file decisions from our 20 elected state attorneys and give it to thousands of judges statewide. Such proposals would subject juveniles to inconsistent and inappropriate penalties while jeopardizing public safety.

Unlike the judiciary, State Attorney’s offices are full of attorneys who have dedicated their professional careers to criminal law, including the specialized field of juvenile justice. Judges are not required to have any criminal justice background. One reason we have the separation of powers between prosecutors who charge crimes and judges who deliver sentences is because the judiciary is designed to be a check against prosecutorial abuse rather than a substitute for normal decision making. That’s why judges always have the final say on punishment. Even in adult court, a judge can choose to give juvenile, instead of adult, sanctions in nearly every case.

Each state attorney is elected to reflect the criminal justice priorities of their constituents, while judges are required to be above public opinion. The goal of every state attorney is to do justice regardless of public sentiment, but state attorneys are accessible and accountable to their communities. People can meet with their state attorney and exchange views and ideas, whereas judges are not allowed to discuss their positions on criminal justice issues.

Our criminal justice system is far from perfect, but statistics show that we’re moving in the right direction in the area of juvenile justice. Proper charging, proportionate punishment and effective rehabilitation will result in reduced recidivism and safer communities for us all.

We must not create adult criminals out of non-violent youthful offenders who can be turned around by juvenile sanctions.