The first part of the article reviews the traditional sentencing system and its critics, and it discusses and critiques the various paths that sentencing reform has taken. The second part of the article summarizes the progressive abolitionists' view and argues that, based on the experience of sentencing reform, juveniles would be harmed by the abolition of the juvenile court's delinquency jurisdiction. In addition, the author argues that the "just desserts" philosophy that has influenced both sentencing reform and recent changes in the juvenile justice system is ill-suited for juvenile offenders. The author then makes some observations about the best path for juvenile justice reform based on the implications of the analysis. He notes that one of the weaknesses of the just desserts theory is its notion that there is a "right" punishment for each offense. Instead, the best that can be said is that there is a range of appropriate punishment for an offense, a range that is neither so lenient as to invite disrespect for the law, nor so severe as to be unfair. This principle of "limiting retributivism" can serve as a good model for a juvenile court sentencing system. Some offenses are so grave that they require significant periods of incarceration, no matter what is learned about the offender; and many minor offenses should never be the basis for an offender's removal from the community. Within the range of acceptable punishments for each offense, there should be room for considered judicial discretion. This approach provides the best opportunity for both protecting society and providing fairness, as well as the opportunity to reform offenders. 115 footnotes