The principle of offense rather than an individual determination of a youth's best interests is increasingly dominating juvenile court sentencing decisions. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court decision involving Gault transformed the juvenile court into a very different institution from that which had been envisioned by its progressive creators. Progressives envisioned a procedurally informal court with individualized, offender-oriented dispositional practices. The Supreme Court's due process decisions have imposed procedural formality at adjudication in the juvenile court's traditionally individualized sentencing schemes. As the juvenile court departs from its original rehabilitative model, it now procedurally and substantively resembles the adult criminal court. Nonetheless, the juvenile justice system regards juveniles as less culpable or responsible for their criminal acts. Punishment involves retribution or deterrence, while treatment focuses on the mental health and future welfare of the individual rather than on the commission of a prohibited act. Proponents of just deserts in juvenile court sentencing practices reject rehabilitation for three reasons: the fact that an indeterminate sentencing scheme gives discretionary power to presumed experts; the inability of clinical experts to justify their differential treatment of offenders on the basis of objective classification schemes; and inequalities that result from therapeutically individualized sentences. Historical aspects of juvenile sentencing practices are reviewed, along with legislative and administrative changes in the sentencing framework of juvenile courts. The quality of procedural justice in juvenile courts is examined in relation to jury trials, right to counsel, and punitive sanctions. 145 notes