VOTE411 Voter Guide

My philosophy on juvenile justice is to protect the community while giving young people the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and become productive citizens. Accountability and rehabilitation should work together. I believe each case should be evaluated individually, considering the child's circumstances, family support, and underlying needs. When appropriate and consistent with public safety, I support diversion programs and evidence-based alternatives to detention, including counseling, mentoring, education, and treatment services. Detention should be reserved for cases where it is necessary to protect the community, the child or to ensure a child's appearance in court.

I support evidence-based alternatives to detention when they are consistent with public safety and appropriate under the law. These include diversion programs, counseling, mentoring, restorative justice, substance abuse and mental health treatment, educational support, and community service. These programs can address the root causes of delinquent behavior while holding youth accountable. Detention should be reserved for cases where it is necessary to protect the community or ensure a juvenile's appearance in court. Every decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the child's needs, risk level, and the safety of the community.

My first duty as a judge is to uphold the law and Constitution while protecting our community. But juvenile courts also have a unique opportunity to intervene at a pivotal point in a child’s life. Accountability and rehabilitation are not competing principles. When consistent with the law and public safety, I support diversion, treatment, family services, and alternatives to detention that address the causes of a child’s behavior and reduce recidivism. No child before the court stands alone; strengthening that child can strengthen a family and our community. My goal is to hold youth accountable while giving them a meaningful opportunity to change course.

I support appropriate alternatives to detention when permitted by law and consistent with community safety. Depending on the circumstances, these may include diversion, probation or community supervision, treatment programs, cognitive behavioral therapy, educational services, mentoring, restorative justice programs, and family-focused services. The appropriate response should be individualized, taking into consideration the seriousness of the offense, risk to the community, prior history, the child’s needs, and available family support. Detention is necessary in some cases, but when a safe alternative can hold a child accountable, address the causes of the behavior, and reduce future offending, it deserves meaningful consideration.