1194-1195. {¶ 29} The dissenter in Welch agreed with Tighe’s holding and stressed the differences between the juvenile and adult systems: The constitutional protections to which juveniles have been held to be entitled have been designed with a different set of objectives in mind than just recidivist enhancement. So the mere fact that a juvenile had all the process he was entitled to doesn’t make his juvenile conviction equivalent, for purposes of recidivist enhancements, to adult convictions. * * * And because the philosophy on which the juvenile court system was founded emphasizes protecting the “best interests of the child” and rehabilitating rather than punishing the child, the culture of the juvenile courts discourages zealous adversarial advocacy even though in its current fo 05) (<HOLDING>), and State v. Hitt, 273 Kan. 224, 42 P.3d 732
holding that a juvenile adjudication may be used as a prior conviction for apprendi purposes holding that juvenile adjudications fit within the priorconviction exception because the main concern of the priorconviction exception was whether the prior convictions procedural safeguards ensured a reliable result not that there had to be a right to a jury trial holding that juvenile adjudications are prior convictions for purposes of the apprendi exception and indicating that the main concern in apprendi was whether the prior convictions procedural safeguards ensured a reliable result not that there had to be a right to a jury trial holding apprendi exception for prior convictions encompasses juvenile adjudications holding that apprendi carved out an exception for prior convictions that specifically preserved the holding of almendareztorres