Progressive reformers created the juvenile court at the start of the 20th century as a social welfare alternative to criminal courts to treat both criminal and noncriminal misconduct by youth. However, the United States Supreme Court's decision in In re Gault in 1967 began transforming the juvenile court into a very different institution than the Progressives contemplated. Although the Court did not intend to change the juvenile court's therapeutic mission, subsequent legislative, judicial, and administrative responses to the Gault decision have modified the court's jurisdiction, purpose, and procedures. Unfortunately, current fiscal constraints, punitive policies, and societal unwillingness to provide for the welfare of children in general make it unlikely that the juvenile court will be rehabilitated or that treatment services for delinquents will expand. In adult court, juveniles would probably continue to receive shorter sentences than older offenders for serious crimes, because youthfulness has long been recognized as a mitigating factor at sentencing. Full procedural parity in criminal courts, coupled with mechanisms to expunge records, restore civil rights, and the like can more adequately protect young people than does the current juvenile court. In addition, rejecting the juvenile court's premise that young people are inherently irresponsible can begin a process of reexamining childhood that extends to every institution that touches their lives. Footnotes (Author summary modified)