Section 707 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code provides for a fitness hearing to determine if a minor offender should be handled by the juvenile court or transferred to adult criminal court. If the alleged offense is a serious crime involving the risk of great bodily injury, the minor must demonstrate amenability to avoid transfer. Otherwise, the burden of showing the minor would not be amenable to juvenile court treatment falls on the State. In both cases, the prosecuting attorney must allege that the minor committed any offense other than a status offense when he or she was at least 16, and the court orders the probation officer to investigate and make a formal report. The fitness hearing has a deterrent effect because it threatens offenders who otherwise would face only juvenile court adjudication with the possibility of harsher adult court treatment. The hearing also promotes rehabilitation by allowing the court to evaluate each youthful offender individually and separate incorrigible 16 and 17 year olds from those who are more likely to benefit from rehabilitation programs. Critics of the fitness hearing point to relaxed evidentiary standards, inconsistent application of transfer standards among jurisdictions, excessive judicial sympathy for a minor in a transferred court, and unclear status of a fitness determination in a future prosecution. A point system similar to that used by San Francisco County to determine whether to release a criminal defendant on his or her own recognizance would help standardize the amenability decisions. In addition, the State legislature should consider implementing a program of training, minimum standards, and increased communication for juvenile court judges. The paper includes 152 footnotes.