When the Victims' Compensation Fund was established following the events of 9/11, it set off a series of debates on the logic of compensation for victims of terrorist acts. Why do we generally compensate for injuries, and how do injuries and deaths caused by acts of terrorism differ from those caused by more ordinary means? What criteria should we consider when determining compensation: the financial need or deprivation or the survivors? the negligence of a public or private entity? Professor Marshall Shapo delves into these and other questions as he teases out the lines of the debate to present a framework for future lawmakers faced with shaping compensation programs for terrorist victims.