THIS ACT SCRAPPED THE ABILITY OF THE COURTS TO IMPOSE SOME FORMS OF SANCTION ON JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN FAVOR OF ORDERS COMMITTING THEM TO THE CARE AND CONTROL OF LOCAL AUTHORITY SOCIAL WORKERS. THE SOCIAL WORKERS WERE GIVEN UNFETTERED DISCRETION AS TO WHETHER SUCH ORDERS SHOULD INVOLVE CUSTODY OR NOT. OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, AS YET UNIMPLEMENTED, ABOLISHED LIABILITY TO PROSECUTION FOR THOSE UNDER 14, AND FOR MOST UNDER 17. THE EFFECT OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ON THE ONE HAND TO DEPRIVE YOUNG PEOPLE OF THE BENEFIT OF PROPER JUDICIAL SAFEGUARDS WHILST AT THE SAME TIME INCREASING PUBLIC ALARM AT THE REDUCTION IN THE SENTENCING POWERS OF THE COURTS WHEN JUVENILE (I.E., THOSE BETWEEN 10 AND 17), ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 25% OF ALL INDICTABLE CRIME, 40% OF BURGLARIES AND ROBBERIES, AND 16% OF CRIMES OF VIOLENCE. THE END RESULT OF REDUCING THE COURTS' RANGE OF POSSIBLE SANCTIONS HAS BEEN INCREASED RELIANCE ON THE FEW PENAL SANCTIONS LEFT, THUS PROMOTING A GREATER USE OF BORSTAL AND DETENTION CENTRES, WITH AN ALARMING NUMBER OF JUVENILES ACTUALLY IN PRISON. AT THE OTHER EXTREME MANY JUVENILES ARE ALMOST IMMUNE FROM CONSTRAINT AND ARE ACQUIRING CRIMINAL EXPERTISE AT EARLIER AGES. IF FULLY IMPLEMENTED THE ACT WOULD HAVE GONE FAR TO ABOLISH JUVENILE DELINQUENCY BY THE SIMPLE EXPEDIENT OF RELEASING MOST JUVENILES FROM CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. HALF-IMPLEMENTED, IT HAS ACHIEVED MUCH THE SAME PRACTICAL EFFECT BY TRANSFERRING SENTENCING POWERS AWAY FROM THE COURTS. COMPLAINTS ARE NOW EQUALLY VEHEMENT FROM THOSE WHO FEEL OUTRAGED THAT THE ACT SHOULD HAVE GONE SO FAR, AND FROM THOSE WHO FEEL CHEATED THAT IT HAS NOT GONE FAR ENOUGH. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)