Supreme Court cases suggest that juvenile justice systems are hybrids. They are sometimes punitive, thus requiring procedural protections unique to the criminal law. In other instances, they are therapeutic, focusing on the correction of the undesirable behavior. Surveyed cases which address the punishment issue reveal that punishment is the purposeful imposition of unpleasant restraints by one person or authority upon another person. Punishment is a sanction imposed to exact retribution or deter undesirable conduct which is often imposed upon those who violate legal rules and are morally culpable. In light of the inexact definition of punishment, questions must arise about a system that hinges vital constitutional rights upon such a vague concept. In re Gault, decided in 1967, marked the first major effort by the Court to relate constitutional principles to the juvenile justice system. More recent cases clearly demonstrate that the juvenile justice system reflects a mixture of therapeutic and punitive concerns. It is suggested herein that focus upon the concept of punishment provides a useful and necessary analytical approach to assess juvenile rights. This approach was articulated in Justice Stewart's dissenting opinion in the Gault case. Adherence to the approach will provide illumination of other juvenile rights issues in subsequent decisions. The article provides 324 footnotes.