On the measurement of delinquency was olfered to win ard this end since it was able to reduce crimes

against the person and against property to unidimensional base, this provided a way to equate the
seriusness of the offensess. “if there is virtue in establishing a state system of victim copensation, there
should be a virtue in exploring the dimentions of the relationship between money values and physical
hram beyond the arbitrary nation of a legislative commite”.

Scafer, however, supporter the ideia that compensation to the victim of crime should be the
personal responsibility of the offender and a part of the correctional process. In trems of correctional
restitution to victim of crime, the offender should understand that the has hurt not only the state, and
law and order, but also the victim. In fact the victim primarily is injured, and as a result the absract
values of society are injured, as well. From this viewpoint restitution not only makes good the injuri or
loss,but at the same time helps in the correction,reform, and rehabilitation of the offender, and can be
regarded not as an extensin but as a part of the sentence. Correctional restitution could be a part of the
syntetic punishment, a response of criminal justice to the functional reponsibility of the criminal.

The efforts of the American Society of Criminology in renewing hte interest in victim
compensatioan were not fruitles. Law journals and popular magazines started to publish articles on the
subject. This almost forgotten problem of restitution to victim of crime “ made its appearance on the
postmidnight radio talkathons, in the popular magazines, and the Sunday supplements. The very
question-why not pay the victim of crime?-seem appealing to anyone with a social conscience”.Perhaps
the most important recen contribution to the victim compesation problem has been the Minnesota Law
Review Symposium. Halaman 127
Hal 139

And recognizes the compensative duty of the state. Yarborough thinks that “ in view of the many social
welfare programs that are in operation, The fialure to recognize the special cliams of this group seem to
be a gross oversight.”

Robert Childres comments upon the Yarborough bill and the California legislation. He also brings
up a number of general problem, and argues with Muellers and Scafers approach to the restituion
problem. He finds “unfortunate omissions” in the Yarborough proposal and suggest that the California
welfare depertment will not be able to mold its statute into a decen program.

Childres calls atention to the cost compensation and does not think in too great. He also calls
attentioa nd to federal state relationships, and suggests tha the proposed reform will not “provoke fears
of bureaucratic monsters”. However, fraudulent claims should be watched, although this seems to be
only a marginal problem.

James Starrs discusses the problem from the anglo of private insurance programs that may
provide the necessary prolection to victim. He has little daubt about the necesity of state
compensation program. However, “undoubtedly, more can be done and would be if insurance
companies assumed a greater share of the cost of crime.”

Starrs sugests that all compensation schemes have the drawback of keeping the level of
payments so low that “full compensation foe all danages must be a rarity under them.” In his view
“insurance provi