It is often said that the legal analysis seeks to justify or legitimize a social reality that discourse has hitherto justified. In this sense, the argument that supports the need for a model of comprehensive protection of the rights of adolescents, is installed on the disqualification of the protective system, openly criticized for its authoritarian character, based on etiological paradigm adolescents identified as potential offenders in need of treatment, resocialization or neutralization, for being a danger generators justification for coercive measures. But perhaps more important is that this new model of justice, leaving the etiologic paradigm (outlined on the premise of an abnormal or pathological state of the subject as justifying coercive exercise of state response), completely rule out the personal circumstances of the teenager as criterion for allowing state intervention, which can only facultársele for such purpose pursuant to the specific conduct constituting a crime. In other words, with reference to the juvenile justice system seeks to find its legitimacy precisely by the conversion of a scheme of copyright law to other acts, behind which is an update of a true rule of law, even though has views to the effect that within the text of the amendment to article 18 of the Constitution vestiges criminological positivism ideological basis or foundation of the guardians.