THE SHIFT AWAY FROM THE REHABILITATIVE IDEAL HOLDS DIFFERING IMPLICATIONS FOR RESTITUTION PROGRAMS AND FOR REFORMS RELATING TO THE VICTIM'S ROLE IN DISPOSITION DECISIONMAKING. RESTITUTION PROGRAMS TIED TO THE REHABILITATIVE IDEA COULD CONTINUE, UNDER A DIFFERENT RATIONALE, WERE REHABILITATION REPLACED BY DETERRENCE OR RETRIBUTION AS A CORRECTIONAL GOAL. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE VICTIM'S ROLE IN DISPOSITION DECISIONMAKING ARE LESS CLEAR. NONE OF THE MAJOR PENAL THEORIES PROVIDES ANY SUPPORT FOR GIVING THE VICTIM CONTROL OR VETO POWER OVER SENTENCING, ALTHOUGH A PERSONAL REVENGE THEORY OF PUNISHMENT WOULD SUPPORT THE ALLOCATION OF SUCH POWERS TO VICTIMS. IN PRACTICE, HOWEVER, VICTIMS OFTEN ARE GIVEN CONSIDERABLE CONTROL OVER OR INFLUENCE UPON SENTENCING AND PLEA-BARGAINING DECISIONS, ON AN INFORMAL BASIS. IT IS NOTED THAT THE VICTIM HAS A CONTROLLING INTEREST IN A CIVIL SUIT. THE WEST GERMAN MODEL GOVERNING PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION MAY HAVE APPLICATIONS IN RECONCILING THEORETICAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ABOUT THE SEPARATION OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LAW WITH ACTUAL PRACTICES. A LESS DRASTIC PROPOSAL THAN VICTIM CONTROL OVER DISPOSITION -- THAT VICTIMS BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE INPUT INTO THE DISPOSITION DECISION -- GENERALLY HAS RECEIVED NEGATIVE RESPONSE FROM LAWYERS AND JUDGES, MANY WHOM EXPRESS CONCERN ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF THE VICTIM'S INVOLVEMENT ON THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDGE. VICTIM INPUT INTO THE DECISIONMAKING PROCESS CAN BE JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS OF THE POTENTIAL BENEFIT TO THE VICTIM AND TO THE PUBLIC, THE VICTIM'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE QUALITY OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE JUDGE, AND THE VICTIM'S ROLE AS A CHECK ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE PLEA-BARGAINING PROCESS. (LKM)