Through much of the 20th century, the juvenile court was the primary legal forum to respond to children who broke the criminal laws. With the rise in youth crime beginning in the late 1970s, legislators and commentators spoke ominously of a nation under siege by a rising generation of violent young criminals. These fears led many Americans to blame the juvenile court and demand that legislators “get tough” with violent and chronic young offenders. In response to recurring epidemics of youth violence over the past three decades, 46 states made significant changes in laws that lowered the age and broadened the circumstances under which young defendants could be prosecuted in the criminal courts. Prosecution in the criminal court was designed to punish young offenders more harshly and for longer periods of time, thereby deterring them and other youths from further crimes. But have these efforts been effective? Does the prospect of harsher sentences and adult time deter youth from committing crimes? Although there are strong proponents on each side of the argument, new evidence has raised questions about the effectiveness of the new laws.