Public criticism of the leniency of the family court with serious juvenile offenders prompted the passage of the 1978 law. After five years, studies show that relatively few juvenile offenders receive the stiff new penalties provided by the law. Statistics from New York City, which generates the great majority of cases, show that (1) only 30 percent of the cases that began in adult court ended up there; (2) 40 percent of the juveniles convicted in adult courts were sentenced to probation; and (3) only 3 percent of the arrested juvenile offenders received sentences stiffer than those that could be imposed in family court. Those supporting the legislation argue that it has been successful in incapacitating that small percentage of juveniles who are violent and a serious threat to public safety. Opponents of the bill argue that the same effect could be achieved under the old system whereby juveniles could be waived to adult court in cases of serious crime. It is argued that the current system removes juveniles from the system best geared to deal with them while placing adult courts in the position of referring a high percentage of cases back to family court, an unnecessary and costly duplication. There is no conclusive empirical evidence that can establish the effectiveness of either system in dealing with serious juvenile crime.