IN WORKING PAPER 5, RESTITUTION AND COMPENSATION, THE COMMISSION CALLS THE FUNCTIONS OF VICTIM COMPENSATION AND OFFENDER RESTITUTION 'OBVIOUS AND NATURAL' AND DEPLORES THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE A CENTRAL FUNCTION IN THE SENTENCING PROCESS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT IF THESE FUNCTIONS HAD BEEN NATURAL COMPONENTS OF CRIMINAL LAW, THEY WOULD HAVE RECEIVED MORE ATTENTION OVER THE 800-900 YEARS OF WESTERN CRIMINAL LAW DEVELOPMENT. RATHER, IT IS SUGGESTED, THAT THE PURPOSE OF TORT LAW IS RESTITUTION WHILE THE PURPOSE OF CRIMINAL LAW IS PUNISHMENT OR REHABILITATION. THE EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF COMBINING THE TORT ACTION AND THE CRIMINAL ACTION INTO A SINGLE TRIAL IS EXAMINED IN DETAIL. PRACTICAL PROBLEMS ARISING WITH THIS SYSTEM ARE LISTED. WORKING PAPER 6, FINES, IS CONCERNED MOSTLY WITH THE THREE ISSUES -- WHEN FINES SHOULD BE IMPOSED, WHEN THEY SHOULD BE COMBINED WITH OTHER DISPOSITIONS, AND HOW TO ENSURE THAT THEY DO NOT OPERATE DISCRIMINATELY. THIS PAPER IS CRITICIZED BECAUSE IT GIVES ONLY FOUR PAGES TO THESE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES. THE REMAINING SIX PAGES OF THE REPORT DESCRIBE AN ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE SWEDISH DAY-FINE SYSTEM. THE INFORMATION IS CALLED INSUFFICIENT FOR A SUBJECT AS COMPLEX AS FINES. THIS CRITIQUE IS HEAVILY FOOTNOTED. (GLR)