Juvenile justice is under attack for being too lenient with youths who commit violent crimes and for being too harsh with those who commit minor offenses. The first criticism is arising in reaction to the large number of serious crimes juveniles have committed: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) statistics show that, in 1977, persons under 18 were responsible for nearly 10 percent of the Nation's murders, 17 percent of the rapes, 32 percent of the robberies, and 52 percent of the burglaries. The second criticism is based on a desire to help status offenders before they become serious offenders and to free the court system for more effective efforts at dealing with those who commit serious crimes. Between one-half and two-thirds of juvenile court time is taken up with the handling of status offenders. Public pressure for dealing more harshly with juveniles accused of violent crimes has influenced 48 States (all but Nebraska and Vermont) to allow serious offenders to be tried in criminal courts, although circumstances vary from State to State. New York's recent law requiring all 13-year-olds charged with murder and all 14-and 15- year olds accused of any serious crime to be tried in a criminal court is reviewed, as is Washington State's new point plan for juvenile offenders. The historical perspective includes discussions of deinstitutionalization in Massachusetts and the development of the U.S. juvenile justice system through the last 100 years. Concepts of juvenile delinquency and reform, Supreme Court decisions protecting youths, Federal funding pressure on States to end the incarceration of juveniles, and proposals for further changes are also reviewed. Footnotes, summaries of recent issues, an arrest data table, and a 22-item bibliography are included.