Almost every State has enacted legislation that enables judges to issue orders that require offenders to pay or in some manner compensate for losses that their victims have suffered. There is ample historical precedent for a policy of restitution. Restitution is currently receiving emphasis because it serves one aspect of the currently popular victims' movement, i.e., victim compensation, and it is attractive as an alternative to imprisonment in an era of prison overcrowding. Restitution programs take several forms. Court-ordered victim-offender reconciliation programs are designed to heal the breech between the victim and offender. Restitution employment programs match offenders with jobs, using the requirement of mandatory repayment to victims to keep them there. Restitution is usually a condition of probation or parole, however, or is ordered in association with a suspended sentence. This paper argues that restitution programs are not victim-oriented in practice, but rather use rhetoric about their victim benefits to legitimize their use as alternatives to incarceration. 70 notes