Schuster (1978) observes that the serious violent delinquent, as measured by the Ohio cohort data, is an insignificant part of the total population and only a small part of the delinquent population. Because of their small numbers, Schuster concludes, it is more appropriate to rely on the traditional juvenile court waiver mechanisms than to create new laws for the special handling of serious juvenile offenders. From another perspective, however, although serious juvenile offenders are few, they cause considerable social harm, such that measures must be taken to protect society from them. This view, combined with an emphasis on crime reduction through incapacitation, has led to a policy of mandatory incarceration for serious juvenile offenders in some States. Another view holds that the incapacitation of chronic juvenile offenders will not substantially reduce the crime problem, because so many serious delinquent acts go undetected according to self-report data; however, the same studies suggest that the more frequent and serious violators eventually become 'official' delinquents. Another perspective neither minimizes the problem of serious juvenile crime nor suggests that the rehabilitative goal of juvenile justice be abandoned. It advocates that juvenile justice develop programs that will facilitate change in serious juvenile offenders while providing adequate protection for society. While research can provide more information on what does and does work with such offenders, youth policy ultimately rests on ethical considerations that lie beyond the province of the legal and behavioral science realms. Thirty notes, 48 references, and tabular data are provided. (Author summary modified)