The Juvenile Offender Laws, also designated the Juvenile Justice Reform Amendments of 1978 and 1979, were part of the Omnibus crime control legislation, which was passed in response to intense community concern with the problem of juvenile crime. These laws represent a decisive change in the philosophy of treatment to be accorded juveniles accused of crime. Changes include the use of the adult criminal court as the court of original jurisdiction, adversarial public proceedings, and the presumption that adult treatment is appropriate for youths who commit juvenile offender crimes. The system for juvenile offenders structured by the new laws is economically and administratively inefficient. There are three principal indications that too broad an array of crimes triggers adult prosecution. First, in most cases of juvenile offender arrests the case is either removed to family court or prosecution is declined. Thus, the processing of youths in the adult system in most cases can be considered to be duplicative and unnecessary. Also, certain of the designated juvenile offender crimes are more apt to be removed from the adult system than others (e.g., robbery). Hence, those youths whose cases would have been removed to family court may now be prosecuted in adult courts. Third, adult prosecution under the new law may actually find themselves removed to youth or family court since district attorney consent for removal is not required for lesser offenses. The overbreadth of the category of crimes that triggers harsh juvenile offender treatment is harmful to the juvenile and to the community. In addition, the Juvenile Offender Laws suffer from unevenness of administration, as certain counties use the provisions more readily. Use of the adult criminal network for juveniles slows down the criminal process since juvenile offenders must wait longer for their cases to be heard than if they had been processed in family court. Thus, the laws provide an unsatisfactory system for handling the problem. The legislature should reinstitute original jurisdiction over the violent juvenile in the family court. A waiver system should be used in family court, and juveniles who will be subject to such waiver must be clearly defined. Specialized treatment should be develop for the juvenile criminal who is subject to waiver, and the correctional system used for these youths must seek to protect them from the detrimental effects of institutionalization. The note provides 128 footnotes.