IN CONTRAST TO ANCIENT PRACTICES IN CRIMINOLOGY WHICH PROVIDED FOR COMPENSATION TO THE INJURED, THERE IS GROSS INEQUITY IN CURRENT PROCEDURES WHICH EMPHASIZE THE OFFENSE AGAINST SOCIETY AND COMPENSATE THE STATE INSTEAD OF THE INDIVIDUAL. USING AN ANALOGY WHICH COMPARES COMPENSATING WORKERS TO COMPENSATING CRIME VICTIMS TO PINPOINT COLLECTIVE SOCIETAL RESPONSIBILITY, THE FOLLOWING ALTERNATIVES TO STATE COMPENSATION ARE CONSIDERED: (1) A CIVIL ACTION SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST THE OFFENDER; (2) AN ORDER OF THE CRIMINAL COURT INSURING RESTITUTION; AND (3) INSURANCE PURCHASE. HISTORICALLY, VARIOUS STATE COMPENSATION PLANS HAVE BEEN ADOPTED INDICATING THAT THE GRATUITY THEORY OF VICTIM REIMBURSEMENT IS GAINING ACCEPTANCE. MOST OF THE PLANS COMPENSATE ONLY FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH, AND MANY HAVE SPECIAL EXCLUSIONS FOR AUTOMOBILE CRIMES. PENDING FEDERAL LEGISLATION CAN BEST BE ILLUSTRATED BY TITLE 1 OF THE PROPOSED VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT OF 1973. THE FOLLOWING SIGNIFICANT DISTINCTIONS FOR THE VICTIM AND THE INTERVENOR ARE MADE: (1) TYPE OF LOSS EACH MAY RECOVER (PECUNIARY AND NET LOSSES); (2) FINANCIAL STRESS OF VICTIMS; AND (3) EXISTENCE OF MAXIMUM RECOVERY FOR VICTIMS ($50,000). SOME IMPORTANT REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT THE CRIME MUST BE VIOLENT AND WITHIN FEDERAL JURISDICTION, AND BE REPORTED WITHIN 72 HOURS. COOPERATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS, AS WELL AS FILING CLAIMS WITHIN 1 YEAR OF THE CRIME OCCURRENCE ARE ESSENTIAL. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT COMPENSATION TO CRIME VICTIMS CAN SERVE TO STRENGTHEN THE SOCIAL FIBER OF OUR NATION. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE MOST VIABLE APPROACH IS FOR THE STATE TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPENSATION. TABULAR DATA AND NOTES ARE PROVIDED. (JCP)