EXPERIENCE TO DATE SUGGESTS THAT MANY OF THE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH RESTITUTION PROGRAMS CAN BE RESOLVED AND FAIR RESTITUTION AMOUNTS CAN BE DETERMINED. DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTION OF DAMAGES BETWEEN VICTIMS AND OFFENDERS CAN BE NEGOTIATED, AND GUIDELINES ARE AVAILABLE FOR DEALING WITH INTANGIBLE DAMAGES, PARTIAL RESTITUTION, AND EXCESSIVE RESTITUTION. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ENFORCEMENT WILL BE A MAJOR PROBLEM, GIVEN THAT INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS ARE AUTHORIZED; IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESTITUTION AGREEMENT IS MONITORED; JUDICIOUS USE IS MADE OF JOB-FINDING SERVICES, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, AND PERSONAL SERVICE RESTITUTION; AND MORE SEVERE SANCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR OFFENDERS WHO REFUSE TO CARRY OUT THEIR RESTITUTION OBLIGATIONS. IF RESTITUTION IS USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO EXISTING CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS, THE OVERALL COSTS OF SANCTIONING WILL BE REDUCED. THE ISSUE OF VICTIM CULPABILITY--VICTIMS' PRECIPITATION OF THEIR OWN VICTIMIZATION--COULD BE ADDRESSED BY REDUCING THE RESTITUTION OBLIGATION ON THE BASIS OF AN ASSESSMENT OF THE VICTIM'S CULPABILITY. A PREFERABLE APPROACH IS SIMPLY TO VIEW RESTITUTION AS A MEANS OF TREATING OFFENDERS AS RESPONSIBLE PERSONS WHO ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR CHOOSING A CRIMINAL ALTERNATIVE, EVEN WHEN PROVOKED. PRACTICAL ISSUES CAN BE RESOLVED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS THROUGH A NEGOTIATION PROCEDURE INVOLVING THE VICTIM, THE OFFENDER, AND AN INTERMEDIARY. RESTITUTION SHOULD BE ACTIVELY PURSUED AS A MEANS OF DEALING WITH SPECIFIC TYPES OF OFFENSES, PARTICULARLY PROPERTY CRIMES. (LKM)