THE ACT MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR CRIMINAL COURTS TO ORDER AN OFFENDER TO COMPENSATE THE VICTIM OR VICTIMS, EVEN IF CIVIL REMEDIES WERE AVAILABLE. ALTHOUGH TIME AND AGAIN THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS UPHELD THIS PROVISION, IT HAS STRUCK DOWN SENTENCES WHICH WERE WELL BEYOND THE FINANCIAL MEANS OF THE OFFENDER, WHICH WERE CONSIDERED IN EXCESS OF LOSS SUFFERED, AND WHICH MIGHT DRIVE THE OFFENDER TO FURTHER CRIME IN ORDER TO MEET THE IMPOSED COMPENSATION ORDER. IN GENERAL, THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS UPHELD ORDERS PROVIDING FOR REPAYMENT OF LOSS IN SMALL AMOUNTS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. IT HAS STRUCK DOWN ORDERS MANDATING LARGE AMOUNTS, ESPECIALLY IF THE OFFENDER IS NOT CONSIDERED EMPLOYABLE. THE APPELLATE COURT HAS ALSO UPHELD THE RIGHT OF THE VICTIM TO COMPENSATION FOR TIME LOST FROM WORK AS THE RESULT OF THE CRIME AND FOR OTHER DIRECTLY RELATED PERSONAL INJURY, LOSS, OR DAMAGE. THE FORM OF THE COMPENSATION ORDER HAS ALSO BEEN ESTABLISHED THROUGH THESE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. THIS REVIEW CITES SIGNIFICANT CASES, EXTRAPOLATES GUIDELINES FOR LOWER COURTS, AND DISCUSSES QUESTIONS STILL UNANSWERED. THE 53 FOOTNOTES CONTAIN NUMEROUS REFERENCES. (GLR)