Bill C-19, introduced in 1984 but never passed, provided a provision for punitive damages that is consistent with a flexible approach to the assessment of harms and that permits consideration of the symbolic gravity of the offense. In the consideration of punitive damages, this section of the bill makes no reference to cases in which the harm is easily ascertainable and undisputed, a restriction found in the bill's other provisions. Such a restriction assumes that the primary purpose of victim restitution is to provide a personal benefit to the victim. Such an assumption, however, is both theoretically unacceptable and unconstitutional because it makes restitution a civil, rather than a criminal, remedy. Further, it is clearly inconsistent with the social and rehabilitative aims of criminal sentencing. Therefore, redressive sanctions emphasizing moral accountability provide alternatives for achieving the ends of criminal justice. 33 references.