Mark Martin was elected chief justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court in November 2014, three months after Gov. Pat McCrory appointed him to serve the remainder of retiring Chief Justice Sarah Parker’s term. Two years ago, Martin, who has served on the court since 1999, convened the North Carolina Commission on the Administration of Law and Justice, a 65-member panel of attorneys, academics, and nonlawyers to address the state’s handling of civil justice, criminal investigations, legal professionalism, technology, and public trust in the courts.

Earlier this year, the commission delivered a report to the General Assembly urging, among other reforms, legislation raising the default age teenagers charged with nonviolent offenses would be tried in adult courts from 16 to 18 years old. Legislation making that change has passed the House and a version of it is included in the budget passed by the Senate.

Martin spoke with CJ Associate Editor Kari Travis in early May at his office. The first installment of the interview deals with juvenile justice reform. The second part, covering the use of technology and improving public confidence in the judicial system, will appear online at a later date.

This interview was edited for clarity and space.

Q: It’s fairly unprecedented for a chief justice to take such a strong position of leadership on legislation related to a judicial reform. What inspired you to take this on?

A: First and foremost, we’ve had generational studies for the court system. The all-important Bell Commission … began in the 1950s and ran into the 1960s. The Bell Commission spawned the General Court of Justice, a unified court system for the entire state that replaced a hodgepodge of municipal court systems that were totally non-uniform.

So you would have a case in Bryson City that could potentially be handled very differently than in the city of Raleigh … .

And then we came into the 1990s, and we had another systemwide review. The Medlin Commission took another look at the system of justice … and began to realize that the court system had really fallen behind. It had fallen behind the private sector in terms of technology. There were alternative dispute resolution procedures that were being used around the country and had not yet been fully incorporated into our system here.

So we came up to 2015, and I realized that it had been about 20 years since we had conducted this systemwide review. [So we performed] a 15-month study with a 65-member commission that was fully inter-disciplinary. It was far beyond just lawyers and judges.

And the committee that looked at juvenile justice began to realize early on that we had a real problem.

In the age of the internet, we were charging 16-year-olds with nonviolent offenses. These were offenses that would be quickly resolved. And so a young person and their parent would think, ‘Well, that’s behind us and we’ve done some community service,’ only to find five or six years later that the very minor offense was now leading to problems with this college graduate actually getting a job.

The commission used a data-driven analysis [that looked at] the outcomes in adult court for these young people. Let’s compare it to the results in juvenile court where at times we have dysfunctional families, and these young people have need for a role model or someone who can help them to look at why this incident happened. Because often the incident is a consequence of something much deeper.

And so utilizing these resources, we can not only resolve the charge — just like we could do in adult court — but we have better results moving forward.

So that data showed that we’d cut the recidivism rate. Remember, for each person we keep in an adult prison, that’s going to be tens of thousands of dollars a year. So the key is [turning] around some of these young people so that they can be … a contributor to society, rather than someone who is in the prison system as an adult.

The second reason is that despite what we’d accomplished with the Bell Commission — a unified court system — we already had 11 counties that were using administrative diversionary programs to raise the age in local areas. So imagine how unfair it is to be a young person in one of the other 89 counties where you’re being taken to adult court, whereas in 11 counties you were already getting the benefit of the juvenile court approach.

I do believe that [juvenile justice reform is] ultimately a policy decision for the General Assembly. But as the judge responsible for making sure that the system is working right for the people of North Carolina, when I had the conclusion of this commission which saw people from all walks of life unanimous in their recommendation that this modest measure [should be taken.] And secondly, when I realized that what keeps me going as a judge is my quest to uphold the constitution to apply the law well, and we call that justice. And if I feel [it’s unjust] if I’m presiding over a … situation where young people are being treated differently depending on what part of the state they happen to live in.

Q: Why has it taken North Carolina so much time to catch up with the rest of the country?

A: I think that our state government over time has done a very good job of trying to be frugal. And there are some initial up-front costs. The studies that I’ve [seen show] over time we save money. But initially, it’s just like any investment.

Q: Your recommendation for juvenile justice reinvestment enjoys unprecedented support from groups that historically had opposed this effort. Why?

A: Every now and then, even in this current area where there has been a lot of divisiveness, there’s an issue where if everybody looks at the same data … and then you say, ‘Well, maybe this is just one of those issues where there really is only one reasonable answer.’ And I say that there are a lot of specifics that the General Assembly can still determine. They are taxed with the obligation to decide which categories of cases will go to juvenile court. Some proposals include misdemeanors only. Some of them include nonviolent felonies. I’ve always believed that’s a legislative question. …

Q: Are you making any headway persuading those who worry about the short-term costs of boosting juvenile justice services and facilities?

A: I think when you’re talking in terms of a $23 billion biennial budget, and you look at the number that was given to me on this, which is about $20 million. … My concern is that it seemed to be challenging to assess the exact cost.

You have to know the cost. And it may be that you have to include fewer offense categories initially to make it work. But I think the data is overwhelming.

The Department of Public Safety conducted a study in which it learned that over 90 percent of adults in North Carolina already thought that you were an adult for criminal court purposes when you were 18. Not when you were 16. So 90 percent of our parents, if this data is accurate, were quite shocked when their teenager was in trouble and they weren’t talking about a juvenile court experience.

Q: As the chief justice, do you feel that our courts are well situated to handle this reform?

A: I think we’re totally prepared. I wasn’t sure of that 15 months ago. And then during the process of, not only the Commission on the Administration of Law and Justice, but also Gov. [Pat] McCrory had asked the secretary of health and human Services and me to chair a substance use and mental health task force. Both panels came back recommending that we needed to raise the age for nonviolent offenses.

[I]n the juvenile justice division … you quickly realize that you’ve got to do something that’s more effective than having them come to adult court. Oftentimes — to really turn someone’s situation around — there has to be more than just an hour in court. There needs to be a program. There needs to be a requirement to comply with certain conditions.

Two years ago, I had my doubts, possibly, about whether we would be ready to administer this new program. I have no doubts now that we can do so.