WITH JUVENILE OFFENSES, THE KEY ISSUE IS WHETHER THE JUVENILE WILL REMAIN WITHIN THE JUVENILE COURT SYSTEM OR WHETHER HE WILL BE TRIED IN AN ADULT CRIMINAL COURT. THE REGULATIONS, AGE LIMITS, AND TIME LIMITS WITHIN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS WITH REGARD TO WAIVING A JUVENILE TO AN ADULT'S COURT VARY WIDELY FROM STATE TO STATE. THE CRITERIA FOR WAIVER--THOUGH MORE UNIFORM IN THEIR PHRASEOLOGY--ARE SO VAGUE THAT THEY CAN BE CONSTRUED AS APPLYING TO ALMOST ANY TYPE OF MAJOR OFFENSE; THE CRITERIA INCLUDE THE RECIDIVISM OF THE OFFENDER, THE LACK OF SUITABLE TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR THE OFFENDER WITHIN THE JUVENILE SYSTEM, AND THE DETERMINATION THAT A JUVENILE IS A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY. THE AMBIVALENCE OF THE CRITERIA--I.E., THAT OFFENDERS MAY BE WAIVED FOR SUCH OPPOSING REASONS AS TREATMENT OR THE SECURITY OF SOCIETY--DATES TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SEPARATE JUVENILE COURT SYSTEM AT THE END OF THE 19TH CENTURY. EVEN THEN, IT WAS NEVER CLEARLY ESTABLISHED WHETHER THE NEWLY CREATED COURT SYSTEM SERVED THE GOALS OF REHABILITATION, GENERAL DETERRENCE, PUNISHMENT, PROTECTION OF PUBLIC SAFETY, OR RETRIBUTION. DUE TO THIS AMBIVALENCE, UNCLARIFIED AND FREQUENTLY ARBITRARY CRITERIA CONTINUE TO GUIDE THE JUDGE'S DECISION, AND 17 PERCENT OF JUDGES ADMIT THAT PUBLIC OPINION CONCERNING A CASE IS A MAJOR UNSPOKEN FACTOR GOVERNING THE WAIVER. EITHER THE JUVENILE JURISDICTION SHOULD BE ELIMINATED ENTIRELY FOR SERIOUS OFFENSES, WHICH AT LEAST SERVES CLARITY, OR THE JUVENILE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS HAVING A MISSION FOR JUVENILES, EVEN WHEN THEIR CONDUCT INVOLVES SERIOUS OFFENSES. AT LEAST THESE CONTRARY ALTERNATIVES HAVE THE MERIT OF AVOIDING THE ASSERTION THAT RANDOMIZED DISCRETION SERVES JUSTICE. THE ARTICLE INCLUDES A BIBLIOGRAPHY. (SAJ)