The selection of jurisdiction for adjudicating juvenile crime today is one of the most controversial debates in crime control policy, reflecting differences in assumptions about the causes of crime and philosophies of jurisprudence and punishment. For adolescent offenders, especially violent youth whose behaviors may pose particular social danger, critics view the traditional goals of the juvenile court and the 'best interests of the child" standard as being at odds with public concerns for

more »

... ibution and incapacitation of criminals. The choice between jurisdictions is a choice between the nominally rehabilitative dispositions of the juvenile court and the explicitly punitive dispositions of the criminal courts.' The choice reflects differences between sentencing policies that assign primary importance to the individual and those that accord greater significance to the seriousness of the offense committed and the goal of proportional punishment. _ Critics of the juvenile court's rehabilitative policies suggest that the court's sanctions for violent crimes are not only inappropriate and disproportionate for the seriousness of the crimes, but also inef-•