METHODS FOR INDEMNIFICATION OF OWNERS FOR THEIR DESTROYED OR STOLEN GOODS OR FOR PHYSICAL HARM (IDENTIFIED FROM U.S. AND EUROPEAN PRACTICES) REVEAL THE GROWING NEED FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND FOR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE TO ASSUME DAMAGES. TECHNIQUES FOR ENSURING AGAINST THE RISK OF VIOLENT CRIME INCLUDE COVERAGE BY MUTUAL SOCIETIES CREATED INDEPENDENTLY BY INSURERS OR POTENTIAL VICTIMS, BY FUNDS OR MUTUAL SOCIETIES CREATED BY THE URGING OF THE GOVERNMENT, OR BY PREMIUM INSURANCE (EITHER THROUGH EXTENSIONS OF A GUARANTEE OR THROUGH SEPARATE COVERAGE). BECAUSE A RISK IS GENERALLY INSURABLE FROM THE MOMENT A DEMAND FOR INSURANCE EXISTS, AND THE SPREAD OF VIOLENT CRIME IS CURRENTLY CAUSING LARGE NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL VICTIMS TO DEMAND INDEMNIFICATION IN CASE OF ATTACKS OR DISORDER, FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERAL COVERAGE FOR THE RISK OF VIOLENCE SEEMS PROBABLE. CURRENTLY, THE DIVERSITY OF COVERAGE AMONG NATIONS ILLUSTRATES THE SPREAD OF CRIME AND THE LEVEL OF PUBLIC DEMAND FOR PROTECTION. MUTUAL INSURANCE IS BEST SUITED FOR COVERAGE OF RELATIVELY POOR RISK SITUATIONS. PROPERTY DAMAGE CAN ALWAYS BE COVERED BY PRIVATE INSURANCE, WITH THE PREMIUMS BEING PAID EITHER BY THE PROPERTY OWNER OR JOINTLY BY THOSE INSURED. HOWEVER, IF PRIVATE COMPANIES CANNOT OFFER COVERAGE FOR THE RISK OF COLLECTIVE VIOLENCE, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD CREATE THE NEEDED MECHANISMS WITH PRIVATE FUNDS, IF NECESSARY. LEGISLATION ULTIMATELY MAY BE PASSED TO PROTECT THE INSURED IN CASES OF PROPERTY AS WELL AS BODILY DAMAGE. THE FORMER WILL PROBABLY BE COVERED BY PREMIUM OR MUTUAL INSURANCE, AND THE LATTER BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXAMPLES OF EXISTING PRACTICES ARE CITED FOR EUROPE AND THE U.S. EXTENSIVE NOTES ARE PROVIDED. FOR AN ENGLISH SUMMARY TRANSLATION, SEE NCJ-59507. --IN FRENCH. (MHP)