While early codes placed emphasis on the victim and his right to restitution, changes in British law between 1300 and 1900 resulted in the government's claiming most of the victim's compensation and even went so far as to forbid victims any effort to receive restitution from an offender. While today's emphasis is still on the offender, a number of countries have now implemented victim-compensation schemes, although an antivictim bias has impeded rapid progress in this area. Compensation has been advanced primarily as a moral right of the victim or an extension of existing welfare principles. Some have argued that it is a legal duty of the state; while others see it as a political ploy to gain votes. Arguments against compensation schemes boil down to financial considerations. Alternatives to compensation include restitution, insurance, tort law, and social welfare schemes. In Canada, 11 of 12 provinces and territories now have operating compensation schemes. In general, these programs require a causal link between the offense and the injury and provide for compensation in the form of a lump-sum payment, periodic payments, or both. The fundamental points of the British scheme require that claims be determined by a judicial or quasijudicial body. Remuneration is payable only in deserving cases and on an ex gratia basis subject to variation. Society has once again returned to an acknowledgement of the victims of crime: compensation is a first, cautious step toward an overdue recognition of society's duty to its forgotten victims. Sixty footnotes are included.