During the 1970s and 1980s the juvenile justice system was dramatically changed in the United States: a substantial portion of crimes committed by juveniles were transferred to the jurisdiction of criminal courts. This has occurred due to the significant increase in youth crime rates (Fagan, 2008). David O. Brink (2004), professor of philosophy, argues that this transformation was also part of a more general trend to “get tough” on criminals, due to the growing number of violent crimes. There are several main supporting arguments to be presented here. First, the transformation of the justice system will help maintain social order and justice, and also prevent more juveniles from committing crimes in the future; furthermore, the division of the courts by age is not justified by itself, at least with respect to the proclaimed aim of rehabilitation or re-education of young criminals; and finally, if individuals want society to be free from young criminals, more attention should be paid to our children and some steps should be taken in advance. The first argument is in favor of social order. Any well-organized society exists in accordance with a rigid set of rules and principles that everyone must follow, as well as expect others to follow them. This sense of mutual responsibility and equality before the law must exclude a person from harmful acts; otherwise they must be ready to suffer. Differences in punitive measures for different categories of criminals who commit the same crime undermine the system of social order and justice. Why should some criminals be given a second chance and escape punishment? Who will give their victims a second chance? To make children today incapable of co...... middle of paper ......there is much doubt about its rehabilitative function. Society in general must pay more attention not to re-education, but first and foremost to the right education, so that youth crimes can be prevented. Works Cited Brink, D. (2004). Immaturity, regulatory competence and juvenile transfer: how to (not) punish minors for serious crimes. Texas Law Review, 82, 1555.Fagan, J. (2008) Juvenile Crime and Criminal Justice: Resolving Boundary Disputes. The Future of Children, 18(2), 81-118.Maroney, T. (2009). The false promise of adolescent brain science in juvenile justice. Notre Dame Law Review, 85, 89.Steinberg, L. (2000). Should juvenile offenders be tried as adults? A developmental perspective on legal policy change. Paper presented as part of the Congressional Research Briefing entitled Juvenile Crime: Causes and Consequences, Washington.