THE JUVENILE COURT WAS A LOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF 19TH-CENTURY VALUES, ATTITUDES, AND CHILD CARE PRACTICES. IF A CHILD WAS FOUND TO BE DEPENDENT, NEGLECTED, OR DELINQUENT, AN ADJUDICATION OF STATUS WAS MADE AND THE COURT ASSUMED WARDSHIP OVER THE CHILD. THE COURT WAS NONCRIMINAL, CONFIDENTIAL, INFORMAL, PROTECTIVE, AND PREVENTIVE. EMPHASIS WAS ON INDIVIDUALIZED SERVICES. BECAUSE THE CHILD WAS NOT A PERSON IN THE LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ABUSE DID NOT APPLY. TRADITIONALLY THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD WAS EQUATED WITH THE BEST INTEREST OF THE STATE, AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE MINOR'S BEST INTERESTS MIGHT CONFLICT WITH THE STATE'S WAS NOT CONSIDERED. SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS AFTER THE FOUNDING OF THE JUVENILE COURT, THE SCENE HAS CHANGED. CHILDREN NO LONGER ARE VIEWED AS PROPERTY BUT ARE CLEARLY PERSONS BEFORE THE LAW, WITH AN ARRAY OF LEGAL RIGHTS. THE JUDICIAL PROCESS THAT APPLIES TO JUVENILE VIOLATORS OF THE CRIMINAL LAW IS NOT UNLIKE THE PROCESS OF ADULT CRIMINAL COURTS. CHILDREN ARE NO LONGER HELPLESS BEFORE THE LAW. COMPARABLE CHANGES HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN JUVENILE CORRECTIONS, WHERE THE EMPHASIS IS ON PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO MAKE YOUTHS RESPONSIBILE FOR THEIR BEHAVIOR. SUCH TECHNIQUES AS REALITY THERAPY, GUIDED GROUP INTERACTION, POSITIVE PEER CULTURE, AND BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT YOUTHS ARE ABLE TO EXERCISE CHOICE AND TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR BEHAVIOR. SUCH CHANGES RAISE QUESTIONS REGARDING JUVENILE COURT STATUTES AS THEY RELATE TO JUVENILE VIOLATORS OF THE LAW. ONE QUESTION CONCERNS THE PROPRIETY OF THE JUVENILE COURT'S ASSUMPTION OF WARDSHIP OVER AN ADJUDICATED JUVENILE LAW VIOLATOR. THE PREDICATION OF BOTH COURT AND CORRECTIONAL PRACTICES ON THE NOTION OF CULPABILITY OF THE OFFENDER FURTHER SUGGEST SUGGESTS THAT, IN MOST CASES, THE NEEDS OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS SHOULD BE JUDGED BY THE JUVENILES THEMSELVES. (LKM)