THE MAJOR BENEFIT OF THE NEW CODE IS ITS DELINEATION OF THE STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM WITH REFERENCE TO CASE LAW. A MAJOR CHANGE IS THE SEPARATION AND REORGANIZATION OF THE VARIOUS COURT PROCEEDINGS AND EXPANSION OF THE DEFINITIONS SECTION. OVERALL, THE CODE FAILS TO BREAK ANY NEW GROUND IN THE HANDLING OF MISCREANT JUVENILES. THE LAW IS AN ARRAY OF LEGISLATIVE COMPROMISES AND A REPETITION OF PAST SHORTCOMINGS. MINIMIZING THE STIGMATIZING JUVENILE JUSTICE INVOLVEMENT IN THE LIVES OF YOUTH UNDERGOING MAJOR LIFE ADJUSTMENTS IS AS IMPORTANT AS ELIMINATING AND RESTRICTING THE JAILING AND DETENTION OF JUVENILES. WHILE THE LEGISLATION DEALT WITH THE LATTER ISSUE, IT FAILED TO CONFRONT THE FORMER. THE LEGISLATION SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED CLEAR GUIDELINES FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH JUVENILES CAN BE DIVERTED FROM THE JUVENILE COURT THROUGH INFORMAL ADJUSTMENTS. ALSO, A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES FOR THE JUVENILE COURT'S BROAD DISCRETIONARY POWERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. SUCH A SYSTEM MIGHT HAVE INCLUDED THE USE OF A JUVENILE COURT PUBLIC POLICY COMMITTEE WHICH WOULD REVIEW, EVALUATE, AND DETERMINE COURT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. A BIBLIOGRAPHY IS PROVIDED. (RCB)