The use of the death penalty as punishment for juveniles generates considerable debate. The juvenile justice system is based on the belief that juveniles are developmentally different from adults, and have a limited ability to make sound judgements. During the last several years, a new “get-tough” attitude has shown up in policies on juvenile crime. There is a widespread belief among the general public that juveniles are committing more frequent and more serious crimes than juveniles in the past. These perceptions are not supported by recent analyses of juvenile crime trends, which reveal a decline in the most violent juvenile crimes over the last 20 years. This study compared levels of support for the death penalty for adults and juveniles, examined death penalty support in light of alternatives (life without possibility of parole or LWOP), and explored the minimum age at which respondents were willing to allow a juvenile to be executed. A telephone survey was conducted between July 26 and August 20, 2000, in Orange County, CA, households. The results show that those that supported the use of the death penalty were White, male, wealthy, and religiously and politically conservative. The findings revealed that respondents were less willing to support the use of the death penalty for juveniles compared to adults. Between 33 and 50 percent of the respondents, depending on the wording of the question, were supportive of the death penalty for juveniles. When presented with an alternative such as LWOP, support for the death penalty diminished. Twenty-one percent of respondents indicated that the minimum age should be between 5 and 15. Another 27 percent indicated that 16 to 17-year-olds should be eligible for the death penalty. Nearly 12 percent of the sample did not favor the use of the death penalty for juveniles or the LWOP alternative. The findings suggest that respondents are both punitive and progressive and willing to accept more innovative solutions in terms of punishing serious juvenile offenders. 6 tables, 2 notes, 69 references