PSCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH SUGGESTS THAT PEOPLE WHO INJURE OTHER PEOPLE RESPOND IN ONE OF TWO WAYS: EITHER THEY RESTORE ACTUAL EQUITY BY SOMEHOW COMPENSATING THE VICTIM, OR THEY ENGAGE IN DEFENSIVE BEHAVIOR THAT INCLUDES DEROGATION OF THE VICTIM, DENIAL OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACT, OR MINIMIZATION OF THE VICTIM'S SUFFERING. SEVERAL SITUATIONAL VARIABLES -- E.G., THE ADEQUACY AND COST OF AVAILABLE COMPENSATION -- HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO MAKE RESTITUTION TO THEIR VICTIMS. SOCIAL IDEALS AND FORMAL RULES OF LAW HOLD THAT HARMDOERS MUST COMPENSATE THEIR VICTIMS. HOWEVER, THE ACTUAL OPERATION OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM MAKES EXACT COMPENSATION UNLIKELY AND BARGAINING LIKELY. THE INCENTIVE TO RESTORE EQUITY IS DILUTED BY SUCH THINGS AS DELAY IN JUDGMENTS, COSTS OF LITIGATION, AND BARGAINING AT THE EXPENSE OF COMPENSATION. BARGAINED SETTLEMENTS, ALTHOUGH FAILING TO RESTORE EXACT EQUITY, OFFER SOME SUPPORT FOR THE COMPENSATION VALUE. FOR EXAMPLE SOME MAY BELIEVE THEY ARE ENGAGING IN EQUITY WHEN THEY BUY AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE AND DIRECT THEIR VICTIMS TO THE CLAIMS ADJUSTER. INSOFAR AS THE HARMDOER BELIEVES THIS, HE IS UNLIKELY TO COMMIT FURTHER INJUSTICES BASED ON DEROGATION AND RATIONALIZATION. TYPICALLY, LEGAL QUESTIONS INVOLVE DECIDING WHAT COSTS ONE IS WILLING TO PAY IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE WHAT PROPORTION OF WHAT VALUES. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)