THE DISCUSSION IS PRESENTED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE STANDARDS ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND SANCTIONS, DISPOSITIONS, AND DISPOSITIONAL PROCEDURES PROPOSED BY THE INSTITUTE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION JOINT COMMISSION ON JUVENILE JUSTICE STANDARDS. THESE STANDARDS PROPOSE FOUR GENERAL PRINCIPLES: (1) JUVENILE COURT DELINQUENCY JURISDICTION IS LIMITED TO ACTS WHICH, IF COMMITTED BY AN ADULT, WOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIME; (2) THE 'NO FAULT' BASIS OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS REJECTED IN FAVOR OF NOTIONS (DEFENSES AND MITIGATIONS RELATED TO FAULT, DEGREE OF CULPABILITY, AND ACTUAL HARM) COMMON TO THE ADULT SYSTEM; (3) DISPOSITIONAL DISCRETION IS RESTRICTED BY LIMITING THE TYPE AND DURATION OF SANCTIONS AND BY REQUIRING THAT THE SEVERITY OF THE DISPOSITION BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE AND TO THE OFFENDER'S PRIOR RECORD; AND (4) PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS ARE EXTENDED TO THE DISPOSITIONAL STAGE OF DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS. IT IS ARGUED THAT, IN EFFECT, THE PROPOSED STANDARDS WOULD INCREASE ADJUDICATIONS OF DELINQUENCY. CASE EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATING HOW THE STANDARDS WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF INCREASING STATE INTERVENTION BY ENCOURAGING PRETRIAL PLEA BARGAINS ARE PRESENTED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT, ALTHOUGH THE STANDARDS ADVOCATE GRADUALIST REFORMS, THEY POINT THE WAY TO THE ABOLITION OF JUVENILE COURT DELINQUENCY JURISDICTION. IT IS CONTENDED THAT SUCH ABOLITION IS DESIRABLE. (LKM)