Focus is on empirical evidence regarding prediction of future criminality and dangerousness. The evidence indicates that judicial predictions of future criminal conduct are more likely to prove wrong than right and that the likelihood of error cannot be reduced appreciably by the imposition of procedural safeguards. Thus, many, if not most, juveniles will be erroneously identified as potential recidivists and will be needlessly incarcerated. Viewed most narrowly, the decision in Martin affirmatively sanctions a process that unreasonably interferes with the liberty interests of juveniles alleged to have committed crimes. Further, the Court's reasoning may be read as (1) condoning State-mandated intervention in the lives of juveniles merely predicted to become delinquent and (2) approving preventive detention for adult criminal defendants. 358 footnotes.