Prior to the juvenile court era that began in the later 19th century, most youths were tried and punished as adults. In countering this policy, early juvenile court reformers argued that the justice system should offer young offenders treatment that addresses their antisocial behavior. This rehabilitative model of juvenile justice prevailed until a sharp increase in youth violence occurred at the end of the 20th century. This persuaded the public and legislators that youth who commit serious crimes should be held to the same standard of criminal accountability as adults who commit such crimes. This involved a rejection of the traditional view of the juvenile justice system that developmental differences between adolescents and adults warrant different types of justice processing. Currently, legislators and the public are apparently rethinking how young offenders should be treated by the justice system. Age and immaturity are once again entering into how young offenders are treated by the justice system. State legislatures have recently repealed or moderated some of the punitive laws that targeted juvenile offenders; and in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for juveniles as cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling emphasized that the immaturity of adolescents made them less culpable than adult criminals. This article argues for a development model for juvenile justice policy, under which adolescent offenders would be in an intermediate legal category, i.e., neither children nor adults. This model would provide juvenile offenders procedural protections afforded adult criminals while holding them accountable for the harms caused by their offenses and tailoring correctional treatment to their developmental needs. 52 notes