The discussion notes the difficulty sentencers face in determining how to punish someone who cannot pay a fine or who is already living in excessively punishing social conditions and cites research indicating the income inequality rather than poverty alone is strongly related to criminal activity. Four sentencing models explained include the general rehabilitation model, in which the punishment is fit to the offender; the justice model, which makes the punishment fit the crime; the community corrections model, which brings the pains of imprisonment into the community; and the State-obligated rehabilitation model, which includes denunciation of the offense, restitution to the victim, and rehabilitation of the offender. The discussion notes that the continuing dominance of the justice model, the court's reluctance to examine the feasibility of sentences, and the government's failure to limit sentencing discretion have impeded efforts to develop the more rational approach of the State-obligated rehabilitation model. It is concluded that establishing this model would cost as much in the short term as the present system, but that it would ultimately produce savings that could be used to regenerate the impoverished communities in which victims and offenders often live. Reference notes.