Essentially, the authors focus on keeping the separate juvenile court active within the context of American states. Therefore, Scott & Steinberg (2008) are not proposing the abolition of the juvenile court entirely, like what Feld (1998) is proposing. Scott & Steinberg (2008) believe rather that the adult system would be unable to provide any additional benefits beyond what is provided through the juvenile courts. Keeping up with a separate system to handle youths ensures a greater degree of flexibility within the system. Scott & Steinberg argue that most juvenile defenders will eventually mature out of their criminal behaviors, and so long-term punishment for crimes committed before adulthood becomes impractical. This, therefore, makes the approach not too far of a cry from how things are currently done today.

A considerable portion of the public does see the need for reform. The weight on their taxes is an increasing factor in finding a solution that provides for greater cost savings in the operation of a separate juvenile court. Moreover, extreme cases have proven to turn the public's opinions against extreme punishments for young offenders. Thus,...

Scott & Steinberg (2008) show how there is actually less public fear of young offenders as others had previously published. There is more public outcry against the current system today than in past years, showing that it is an opportune time for such reform to be implemented, as it will be more willingly received by the majority of the public.
Overall, there is a clear need for reform within the current juvenile system. Its practices are simply proving too costly and unfair. Therefore, the authors recommend a reform system that doesn't abolish the juvenile system entirely, but just places with within a more developmental framework.