ABSTRACT
Criticism of the utility of a separate juvenile justice system virtually coincided with its inception in the early 1900s in the United States. The operations and practices of the juvenile court have been tinkered with by politicians throughout its 100-year history. However, the recent shift toward more punitive juvenile sentencing, increased waivers to adult court, and harsher correctional systems (Feld, 1999; Fritsch et al., 1996; Gardner, 1987; Hemmens et al., 1997, 1999; Torbet et al., 1996) has led to a substantial increase in academic attention concerning the fundamental assumptions and philosophies of the juvenile justice system. A reexamination of system operations leads some commentators to conclude that it is time to reinvent the system (Hufstedler, 1984; Krisberg and Austin, 1986), whereas others conclude that it is time to abolish it (Wizner and Keller, 1977; Feld, 1999). The impetus behind such arguments lies in criticisms of the fundamental mission of the juvenile court system and in its current operational status across the United States. This chapter reviews arguments on both sides of the abolition debate, beginning with a discussion of the changes in the juvenile justice system that
spawned the most recent arguments about abolition. Following this, an examination of the various arguments on both sides of the debate will be reviewed and discussed.
