This analysis demonstrates that victim compensation would result in more resources being devoted to the area of victimization, even if the volume of crime were unaffected. As now designated, victim compensation could make the number of victimizations increase. Victim compensation can be viewed as a misguided humanitarian attempt to do something beneficial for the truly unfortunate. At worst, it can be a massive subsidy for lawyers and an attempt to sooth public ire toward public officials and members of the judiciary. The type of compensation employed today in many jurisdications provides no incentives to prevent crime. Since the compensation is made from a tax paid by tens of millions, no one individual will feel any incentive to prevent crime with the hope of reducing the compensation contribution. It is contended that the primary forces pushing for adoption of public compensation are special interest groups that will benefit from the program, such as lawyers, bureaucrats, and other groups which perceive benefits from the legislation. In a constitutional setting, fairness would dictate that the criminal be liable for the costs suffered by victims. In an operational contractual setting, where many victims suffer despite the liability of the criminals, justice may dictate aid for victims. The basic solution to the problem is that the laws must be enforced and those who break them must be punished. Tables, figures, and footnotes are included. Approximately 100 references are appended.