Finney County Attorney John Wheeler has cause to be concerned.

A recent Kansas Supreme Court ruling that juvenile offenders have a constitutional right to a jury trial promises to put even more of a burden on an already stressed legal system.

In turning from a 1984 ruling that deemed the juvenile justice system so differed from the adult system that juvenile offenders didn't have a constitutional right to a jury trial, today's high court maintains that a trend away from rehabilitation toward tougher sanctions for young offenders has eroded differences between the juvenile and adult systems.

However, the lone dissenter in the 6-1 decision was the justice arguably most in tune with the issue. Chief Justice Kay McFarland, a former juvenile court judge, said the supposed shift in the juvenile system had been overstated, and called the ruling out of step with other states.

The Kansas decision also runs counter to a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that juveniles don't automatically have a right to a jury trial.

Worth noting is that juvenile trials already are available in Kansas in limited circumstances. Scant few cases go that route, with most ending in plea agreements and diversions.

The appeal stemmed from a Finney County case in which a 16-year-old defendant was sentenced to 18 months in a juvenile corrections center for aggravated sexual battery and alcohol consumption.

Lawyers for the defendant had requested a jury trial that was denied by a local judge.

Moving forward, Wheeler and other prosecutors must figure out how to handle a crush of new work at a time court dockets already are loaded, and governments face tight budgets. The decision affects pending juvenile cases and would apply to those filed in the future.

"There's not enough judges, lawyers or staff to accommodate these cases," Wheeler said.

Young defendants have rights and deserve fair treatment. But public dollars would be better spent on crime prevention and rehabilitation of youngsters than on costly trials.

That makes the recent ruling one that, while made with the best intentions, still will create more problems in further taxing Kansans whose dollars would be better spent on constructive ways to prevent teen crime and help young offenders.