THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM HAS FAILED TO DEVELOP A PHILOSOPHY OF DIVERSION WHICH MEETS THE CRITERIA OF ETHICAL AND LEGAL FAIRNESS. PSYCHOLOGICAL, SOCIOLOGICAL, POLITICAL, AND PRAGMATIC JUSTIFICATIONS FOR DIVERSION SUFFER FROM ETHICAL AND LEGAL BINDS. PSYCHOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION CONFUSES A PSYCHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS WITH AN ACT OF JUSTICE; JUSTICE IS TRANSFERRED FROM THE REALM OF LAW TO THAT OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY. SOCIOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION FAILS TO BALANCE THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS WITH THOSE OF THE OFFENDER AS DIVERSION TO PROTECT THE JUVENILE MEANS THAT MORE CONCERN IS GIVEN TO THE OFFENDER'S RIGHTS THAN TO THOSE OF HIS POTENTIAL VICTIMS. POLITICAL RATIONALE FOR DIVERSION ASSUMES THAT THE WHOLE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS UNREFORMABLE. THE PROBLEM WITH THIS PREMISE IS THAT THERE IS NO PROTECTION FOR THEIR VICTIMS IF ALL BUT THE MOST DANGEROUS OFFENDERS ARE RELEASED. THE PRAGMATIC DEFENSE RAISES SERIOUS PROBLEMS OF MORAL AND LEGAL EQUITY IN THAT DIVERSION IS SIMPLY SEEN AS A MEANS TO CONTROL OFFENDER FLOW THROUGH THE COURTS, JAILS OR DETENTION CENTERS. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT DIVERSION SHOULD BE OFFERED TO ALL OFFENDERS OF A SIMILAR AGE CATEGORY WHO HAVE COMMITTED SIMILAR CRIMES; THIS PROCEDURE WOULD MOVE JUVENILE DIVERSION AWAY FROM THE DISCRETION OF THE POLICE OFFICER OR THE PROBATION OFFICER AND PLACE IT UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. (AJJ)