BY 1925, JUVENILE JUSTICE COURTS HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED IN ALL BUT TWO STATES, BASED ON THE BELIEF THAT SINCE JUVENILES ARE NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR LAWBREAKING AND SHOW DEVIANT BUT NONCRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, THEY SHOULD BE BROUGHT UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE JUVENILE COURT TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR REHABILITATION BEFORE SERIOUS CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR DEVELOPS. UNDER THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM, THE ASSUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND THE REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH GUILT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENSE IS NOT THE FOCAL POINT OF THE COURT'S PROCESSING OF THE JUVENILE. THE THEORETICAL CONCERN OF THE COURT IS TO RENDER A DECISION THAT WILL ACCOMPLISH REHABILITATION. SINCE THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN THE GAULT CASE, JUDICIAL DECISIONS HAVE REQUIRED THAT PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUVENILE COURT PARALLEL MANY ASPECTS OF THE DUE PROCESS MODEL OF THE ADULT CRIMINAL COURT INSTEAD OF THE CHERISHED MEDICAL MODEL THAT HAD BEEN THE FOUNDATION OF THE JUVENILE COURT'S UNIQUENESS. WIDESPREAD ABUSES IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM HAVE PROVEN THAT MANY JUVENILE JUDGES DO NOT HAVE THE WISDOM, KNOWLEDGE, AND SENSITIVITY TO INTERVENE FAIRLY IN THE LIVES OF JUVENILES. WITH JUVENILE COURTS ON THE VERGE OF CONFORMING TO THE COMPLETE DUE PROCESS MODEL OF THE CRIMINAL COURT, THE INTEGRATION OF JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL COURTS SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED TO BETTER TREAT YOUNG OFFENDERS. JUVENILES MAY STILL BE TRIED UNDER MORE LENIENT SENTENCING POLICIES, AND THEIR TREATMENT ACCORDING TO DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE MORE LIKELY. SUCH A MOVE WOULD ALSO ELIMINATE ANY COURT JURISDICTION OVER DEVIANT BUT NONCRIMINAL JUVENILE BEHAVIOR (STATUS OFFENSES). REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)