Is a defendant's ability to pay restitution a rehabilitative goal?

Here, the court cannot link defendants' ability to pay restitution to any type of rehabilitative goal. See, United States v. Day, 418 F.3d 746, 757 (7^th Cir. 2005). A goal in ordering restitution is not necessarily to provide full compensation of damages to the victims of the crime, but as a way of correcting defendant's behavior and as a deterrence to impress upon the defendant the seriousness and cost of his offense. United States v. Peterson, 98 F.3d. 502, 510 (9^th Cir. 1996). 3614(b)(2). Here, the court is wary to impose restitution for what it considers nonrehabilitative purposes. Since one of the goals of restitution is rehabilitation, its imposition forces an offender to recognize the specific consequences of his criminal activity and accept responsibility for those consequences. A restitution award in a criminal case should not represent compensation for harm resulting from an act that might only be considered negligence in a civil setting.