The juvenile justice system, since its conception over a century ago, has been in conflict with itself. Originally conceived as a paternal entity that intervened in the lives of troubled urban youth, it has since been transformed into a rigid and adversarial arena, held back by the demands of personal freedom and due process. The nature of the minor's experience within the juvenile justice system has almost come full circle: he was treated as an adult, then as an irresponsible child, now almost as an adult again. Studies and anecdotes have shown that our modern approach, however, is ill-equipped to reduce crime or address chronic offenders while protecting their due freedoms. We are now on the brink of deciding: How can we find an appropriate balance in the juvenile justice system? Should we even maintain a separate system for children? The answers are usually difficult, sometimes subtle, but always possible to obtain. This article will analyze the different theoretical issues related to the modern juvenile court, determine their origin and suggest a course of action to resolve them to the best extent possible. It is important to note, however, that the juvenile justice system alone will never prevent all juvenile crimes, respond perfectly to every situation, or treat every suspect fairly. Furthermore, an effective antidote to modern youth crime would require much broader action, addressing the inequalities of the social structure that generate poverty and social disorganisation. The Creation of Childhood and Its Court Before modern times, colonial American children were perceived as small adults, more or less less ability to interact with adults and... half of paper... presence of a competent lawyer, matter for the Supreme Court). Judicial waivers would become obsolete. Offenders left in the juvenile system (under 16) would be unlikely to have more than a handful of cases that would raise eligibility issues. If just 1% of older offenders under today's system were exonerated, this problem would be mitigated. It may seem harsh to draw the line at 16 without compromise, but we, as Feld points out, do so with many other social privileges and obligations. The draft age is exactly 18, the driving age in most states is exactly 16, and so on. Is a person better suited to getting drunk a week before his 21st birthday than a week after? Drawing the line is the only way to avoid the problems associated with waiver laws that provide too much discretion that lends itself to discrimination and to ensure consistency.