Pretrial preventive detention of juveniles is authorized by statute in most jurisdictions. Recent studies indicate that most of these detained juveniles will not be sentenced to further incarceration after they receive a full adjudicatory hearing, which has led many commentators to suggest that preventive detention is unnecessary. In Martin v. Strasburg, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declared New York's juvenile preventive detention statute unconstitutional because the court found the statute was used primarily to punish before a determination of guilt. This decision is currently on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Due process prohibits punishment before an adjudication of guilt. In several cases involving adults, the Supreme Court has refined and applied a list of factors to determine whether a sanction is punitive or merely regulatory. The detention at issue in 'Martin' fails this test. The juvenile court was established to serve as an informal, nurturing forum for the treatment of youthful offenders. In a series of cases, the Supreme Court stated that the important liberty interests at stake in juvenile proceedings mandate that due process requirements be infused into the juvenile justice system. These requirements must be imposed, however, without impairing the special features of that system. The unnecessary pretrial detention of juveniles violates the Court's formulation of due process. Eliminating this practice will not remove any beneficial aspects of the juvenile court but will decrease the strain on the limited resources available. The Supreme Court, therefore, should affirm the 'Martin' decision. Declaring the statute unconstitutional will provide the legislature with an opportunity to develop juvenile detention procedures that will both respect the due process protection of liberty and better advance the supportive and rehabilitative objectives of the juvenile court. A total of 196 footnotes are provided. (Author summary modified)