The major issue confronting courts and legislators in juvenile proceedings centers on what kind and what quality of due process juveniles are entitled to. Under common law, a child over the age of 14 was presumed capable of forming the requisite criminal intent; he could be arrested and tried as an adult. In the decision of In Re Gault (1967), the Supreme Court held that juvenile delinquency proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of due process. However, many questions remained after this decision because the Court limited its holding to the adjudicatory stage. Thus, In Re Gault did not hold that all the procedural safeguards to which an adult is entitled also apply to children. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions focused on the specifics of the procedural safeguard aspect, including the right to notice, right to counsel, right against self-incrimination, right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, burden of proof, right to trial by jury, and double jeopardy. The Institute of Judicial Administration and American Bar Association advocate a legalistic alternative to the rehabilitative ideal of the juvenile courts, stating that children charged with crimes should be afforded the full protection of procedural due process safeguards. This approach presumes that rehabilitation per se is not possible, and that equality in punishment is the best that the system can provide. A balance between the old and new concepts must be achieved to serve the interests of children and society effectively. The article provides 263 footnotes.