JUVENILE OFFENDER REFERS TO A PERSON BETWEEN 16 AND 18 YEARS OF AGE, WHILE YOUTHFUL OFFENDER INDICATES A PERSON OVER 18 BUT LESS THAN 21 YEARS OF AGE. TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO JUVENILE DISPOSITION IN THE UNITED STATES OFTEN FOCUS ON THE FAILURE OF PARENTS TO PROVIDE YOUTH WITH PROPER MORAL TRAINING. RESTRAINTS IMPOSED UPON MINORS CONVICTED OF CRIME ARE GENERALLY NOT DIFFERENT FROM RESTRAINTS IMPOSED UPON ADULTS. WHEN THE PHILOSOPHY OF REHABILITATION IS PUT INTO PRACTICE, THE FREQUENT RESULT IS THAT JUVENILE OFFENDERS SUFFER DEPRIVATION OF THEIR LIBERTY FOR A SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD. EXTREME DISPARITY OFTEN EXISTS BETWEEN ADULT SENTENCES TO PENAL INSTITUTIONS AND JUVENILE COMMITMENTS TO REFORMATORIES. THE MOST FREQUENTLY CITED OBJECTION TO THE POTENTIAL DURATION OF JUVENILE COMMITMENTS IS THAT LONG TERMS OF RESTRAINT FOR MINORS VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION GUARANTEES OF FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS. NO STATE EXCEPT CALIFORNIA HAS RULED THAT LONGER SENTENCES FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ALTHOUGH SOME STATES ARE BEGINNING TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF SUCH SENTENCES (CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK). UNDER CALIFORNIA STATUTORY LAW, 19 DISPOSITION ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS BETWEEN 16 AND 21 YEARS OF AGE WHO HAVE VIOLATED THE LAW. FACTORS AFFECTING THE DISPOSITION ALTERNATIVE SELECTED BY THE SENTENCING COURT ARE DEFENDANT AGE, COURT OF ADJUDICATION, PRIOR DELINQUENCY HISTORY, AND TYPE OF OFFENSE COMMITTED. THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE JUVENILE COURT LAW IN CALIFORNIA IS TO GIVE EACH MINOR UNDER ITS JURISDICTION CARE AND GUIDANCE WHICH WILL SERVE BOTH GOVERNMENTAL INTERESTS AND SPIRITUAL, EMOTIONAL, MENTAL, AND PHYSICAL NEEDS OF THE MINOR. OTHER STATUTES PROVIDE THAT MINORS UNDER 16 YEARS OF AGE MAY NOT BE COMMITTED TO STATE PRISONS AND THAT PERSONS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE MAY NOT BE SENTENCED TO PRISON UNLESS THEY ARE FOUND UNSUITABLE FOR COMMITMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY. THE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS MUST BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE GOAL OF REHABILITATION AND NOT PUNISHMENT. CRIMINAL COURT DISPOSITION PROCEDURES ARE DETAILED, AND AN IMPORTANT CASE DECIDED BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT (PEOPLE VERSUS OLIVAS), RULING A SECTION OF THE CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE UNCONSTITUTIONAL INSOFAR AS IT AUTHORIZED THE CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OVER MISDEMEANANTS COMMITTED TO ITS CARE FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM JAIL TERM PERMITTED BY STATUTE FOR THE OFFENSE COMMITTED, IS DISCUSSED. CHANGES IN CALIFORNIA TO ELIMINATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION PROBLEM IN DISPOSITION ARE EVALUATED, AND FURTHER LEGISLATIVE ACTION TO REMEDY INCONSISTENCIES IN DISPOSITION IS RECOMMENDED. CASE LAW IS REVIEWED. (DEP)