One criticism of the informal processing that characterized the early era of juvenile courts was the absence of legal protections afforded adults processed by criminal courts. This included lack of representation by legal counsel, the admissibility of hearsay evidence, and the absence of basic civil liberties such as the presumption of innocence and the privilege against self-incrimination. Other critics of the initial juvenile justice ideal feared that the social-welfare orientation of the juvenile court would damage the moral foundation of society. Such critics believed that the legal system should provide retribution for those who violate the behavioral norms of the community. A third source of criticism consisted of humanitarians, including a number of social workers, who were concerned about the disparities between the juvenile court's social-welfare ideology and its daily practice; for example, over half of the children and youth referred to the court were placed in detention prior to their court hearings, rather than being immediately released to their parents/guardians as envisioned by the juvenile court's operational model. Because critics of the juvenile court base their criticisms on such different perspectives, it is not surprising that their recommendations for reform point the court in different directions. This means that social workers who are involved in casework with juvenile offenders must operate in a juvenile justice system that is inconsistent and confusing in its policies due to conflicting ideologies and goals that vary from one jurisdiction to another. 38 references