The case law developed in the examined States serves as a barometer for the analysis of the application of essentially similar and more recently enacted victim compensation programs in other States. State funding of victim compensation through additional costs and fines on offenders and the recent development of 'Son of Sam' provisions emphasize the responsibility of the criminal to the victim. The evaluation of the State appellate courts pertaining to these laws was done by a comparison of various past proposed modifications, the theoretical justifications for victim compensation, and the practical realities of the modern American superstructure, along with judicial interpretation of the typical victim compensation statute. Regarding eligibility, the State appellate courts have almost unanimously defined the eligibility requirements so as to construct the beneficent purpose of these statutes. The administration and procedures have been analyzed by the courts with the same restrictive results. Generally, the courts have restricted the compensation board's ability to broaden the eligibility requirements of the statute; however, the right of judicial review of a denial of a claim has been implicitly and expressly upheld by the courts. In the area of compensation, the courts continue to relax their strict interpretation of victim compensation statutes and present a more balanced view of the interests of the State's economic considerations and the claimant's need for compensation. The funding provision right of subrogation and 'Son of Sam' provisions have usually been upheld by the courts. The trend of the State appellate courts is highlighted by the failure of the State legislatures to significantly amend their victim compensation acts to make compensation available to more types of victim losses. A total of 264 footnotes are provided.