SERVING AS THE BACKDROP FOR THIS COMPARISON OF STANDARDS AND BRIEF DISCUSSIONS ON THE ORIGINS OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM, JUVENILE RIGHTS ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT AND STATE COURTS, FAILURES OF THE JUVENILE SYSTEM, AND NEW YORK'S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM. THE THREE SETS OF STANDARDS COMPARED HAVE BEEN PROMULGATED BY (1) THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND THE INSTITUTE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION (IJA/ABA STANDARDS), (2) THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION (NAC STANDARDS), AND (3) LEAA'S NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND GOALS TASK FORCE ON JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION (TASK FORCE STANDARDS). THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE THREE SETS OF STANDARDS IS PHILOSOPHICAL. THE IJA/ABA STANDARDS CLEARLY EXTEND THE CONCEPT OF CHILDREN AS PERSONS WITH INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS FIRST ENVISIONED IN THE LANDMARK DECISION IN RE GAULT AND DEVELOPED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS. CONVERSELY, THE TASK FORCE AND NAC STANDARDS MERELY RECAPITULATE THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM OF THE SEPARATE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE FOR JUVENILES AND ADD A FEW FRILLS ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGES IN THE CONCEPTUAL FORMULATION OF JUVENILES' ROLE IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. SPECIFICALLY, THE IJA/ABA STANDARDS ASSERT THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL FOR JUVENILES IN CONTESTED ADJUDICATIONS, WHEREAS THE OTHER SETS OF STANDARDS DISAPPROVE OF A JURY TRIAL IN A JUVENILE PROCEEDING. ALSO, THE IJA/ABA STANDARDS VIEW PUBLIC TRIALS AS THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE PUBLIC AND GRANT THE PRESS ACCESS TO ALL PROCEEDINGS AT ADJUDICATED JUVENILE PROCEEDINGS. AS SUCH, THESE STANDARDS ARE THE MOST PERSUASIVE, RESPONDING TO THE EMERGENT ATTITUDES TOWARDS CHILDREN AS REQUIRING PROTECTION, NOT IN A PATERNAL, DISCRETIONARY MANNER, BUT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE LAW. OTHER DIFFERENCES AMONG THE SETS OF STANDARDS ARE NOTED. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (WJR)