THE REHABILITATIVE PREMISE OF JUVENILE COURT FUNCTIONING SOMETIMES BREAKS DOWN IN THE FACE OF INCREASINGLY VIOLENT JUVENILE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. IT IS ARGUED THAT THERE ARE TWO AREAS IN WHICH PROCEDURE MUST BE CHANGED THROUGH LEGISLATIVE ACTION: (1) REMOVAL OF CASES INVOLVING THE MOST SERIOUS CRIMES OF VIOLENCE COMMITTED BY YOUTH 15 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER FROM JURISDICTION OF THE JUVENILE COURT; AND (2) REDUCTION OF THE PURVIEW OF THE JUVENILE COURT IN REGULATING STATUS BEHAVIOR. PERHAPS AS MUCH AS 50 PERCENT OF ALL SERIOUS CRIME IN THE U.S. IS COMMITTED BY YOUTH. THIS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO CERTAIN FACTORS: (1) THE BREAKDOWN OF THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY; (2) THE HIGH REGARD FOR MATERIAL ITEMS ON THE PART OF YOUTH; AND (3) THE IDENTIFICATION BY YOUTH WITH VIOLENT BEHAVIOR OFTEN PORTRAYED ON TELEVISION OR BY OTHER MEDIA SOUCES. TO COMBAT THIS UPSURGE IN YOUTH CRIME, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT VIOLENT YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BE SUBJECT TO ADULT CRIMINAL SANCTION; THE WAIVER AND TRANSFER PROVISIONS COMMONLY EMPLOYED ARE REVIEWED. NEARLY ALL STATES PERMIT A JUVENILE COURT JUDGE TO WAIVE JURISDICTION AND TRANSFER A JUVENILE TO THE ADULT CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM; ONLY NEW YORK AND VERMONT, WHERE THE MAXIMUM AGE FOR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IS 15, DO NOT ALLOW VOLUNTARY WAIVER. HOWEVER, THE DISCRETION TO WAIVER RESTS PRIMARILY WITH THE JUVENILE JUDGE AND IS CONTINGENT UPON STATE STATUTE. A BILL BEFORE THE MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE PROVIDES FOR WAIVER OF AN INDIVIDUAL 15 YEARS OR OLDER WHO IS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED AN OFFENSE DESIGNATED AS MURDER, KIDNAPPING, CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE FIRST DEGREE, ARMED ROBBERY, ARSON INVOLVING AN OCCUPIED DWELLING, OR CERTAIN LEVELS OF ASSAULT. THE CRITERIA FOR WAIVER MUST INCLUDE DOCUMENTATION OF THE FOLLOWING: (1) PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES AVAILABLE TO THE JUVENILE COURT FOR THE RESPONDENT INADEQUATE FOR REHABILITATION; AND (2) THE BEST INTERESTS AND THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC THAT THE RESPONDENT STAND TRIAL AS AN ADULT OFFENDER. REGARDING THE REDUCTION OF THE JUVENILE COURT ROLE IN REGULATING STATUS BEHAVIOR, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE JUVENILE COURT MAINTAIN PRIMARY JURISDICTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF MINORS WHOSE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL STATE IS SUCH THAT A PROTECTIVE JUDICIAL MONITORING OF THEIR STATUS IS MANDATORY.