When people hear about sexual abuse, whether it is committed by a juvenile or an adult, the dominant emotions evoked are fear and anger toward the perpetrator. This has led to public pressure to punish and incarcerate juvenile sex offenders. The long-term incarceration of sex offenders to protect the public was a reaction to early treatment failures and the poor prognosis for adult sex offenders in treatment. People from all sectors of the community advocated incarceration instead of treatment. As new methods and techniques developed, however, programs began to be more effective in controlling sexually abusive behaviors. In 1986, for example, the Hennepin County Home School in Minnesota was reporting that over 90 percent of program graduates were not reoffending. Using models that emphasize performance and change in treatment and accountability for community safety, professionals now believe that sexually abusive youth can change; they can learn how to control their behavior and become motivated to do so. The choice between incarceration or treatment has given way to the belief that treatment sometimes requires incarceration. Far from being a deterrent, incarceration without treatment fosters the very conditions that lead to further sexual acting out: high stress, no outlets for healthy expression of feelings, no healthy sexual outlets, isolation from family supports, inadequate supervision, and the availability of victims. This paper traces the history of the juvenile court system, legal responses to juvenile sex offenders in the 1980s and 1990s, and the legal process for juveniles. 13 references