In criticizing juvenile courts, psychiatric specialists stress that treatment of juvenile delinquents must be voluntary: enforced intervention imposed by judges making decisions outside their field of competence only stigmatizes juveniles. Regular judges view juvenile judges with condescension and disdain because juvenile judges do not pass sentences and must receive 'subversive' psychosocial training. Police do not understand the new types of measures for juveniles, and the public denounces the indulgence of the courts. Ideologues consider juvenile judges nothing more than an instrument of the government in a repressive, unjust society. Administrators resent the 'meddling' of judges in areas where they do not belong. Opportunities for intervention of juvenile courts with educational measures are limited: the police attempt to deal with juveniles themselves, thus delaying early corrective action, and administrative agencies have developed their own prevention and social protection services. Administrative programs are frequently more amorphous and less voluntary than measures imposed by the courts. Furthermore, administrative intervention is as stigmatizing as judicial intervention and tends to force juvenile judges into a more repressive position. Special juvenile courts are necessary to assure the stability and educative coherence of programs for juveniles. To make the juvenile courts function more smoothly, judges must receive psychosocial training, the primacy of juvenile court educative measures must be affirmed, and special multidisciplinary teams must be developed to assist juveniles in their natural environment. The judge provides the clear symbol of authority indispensable for responsible decisions. Furthermore, unlike administrative programs, courts guarantee procedures for protection of individual rights (i.e., provision for defense). --in French.