Society has demonstrated its desire to rehabilitate rather than punish youth through establishing a separate juvenile justice system. This court's protection, however, is not extended to all juvenile offenders, and youths charged with serious offenses can be tried as adults in certain circumstances. Jurisdiction over such juveniles can be transferred to criminal court by judicial, legislative, or prosecutorial waiver. The Supreme Court has placed constitutional limitations on the exercise of judicial waivers, and numerous commentators have urged incorporating similar due process protections into legislative and prosecutorial waiver statutes. These limitations and concerns demonstrate society's fundamental opposition to the adult system's punitive sanctions as a means of handling juveniles. The Supreme Court's capital punishment jurisprudence reflects two common themes: a punishment must not be unacceptable to contemporary society as demonstrated by evolving standards of decency, and punishment must not be excessive for the particular offense. Contemporary public opinion generally opposes the execution of minors, and responsive legislatures have enacted laws to protect juvenile offenders' rights. Similarly, courts have grown increasingly reluctant to impose the death penalty on children. Because social scientists universally reject free will and rational calculation as major motivating factors behind juvenile crime, the deterrent value of juvenile capital punishment is questionable. The paper includes 183 footnotes.