Proponents of harsher sentencing laws have been successful in advancing their movement nationally in spite of a rather large body of evidence indicating that juveniles in adult facilities are at much greater risk of harm than youth housed in juvenile facilities and counter to the strong research supporting the effectiveness of systemic treatment models. However, the trend toward more punitive sanctions for juvenile offenders is still influencing juvenile justice policy and practice, despite the emergence of significant data that indicates that rehabilitative intervention models can greatly reduce recidivism rates for juveniles. Juvenile justice professionals and policymakers must decide the value of the application of these efforts to current juvenile justice practice. The purpose of this article is to clarify the distinct differences between two current philosophies that seem to be dividing the juvenile justice system of America. The implication associated with the continued emergence of a more offense-based approach compared to the offender-based approach on which the juvenile justice system was founded is discussed. The goal is to stimulate discussion among stakeholders in the juvenile justice system to promote sound policy decisions based on scientific evidence. References