¶ 35. (dissenting). David W. Oakley was convicted of intimidating a witness after his negotiated plea of no contest. The court withheld sentence and ordered Oakley placed on probation for 36 months. The court established several conditions of probation, including the payment of two "old fines" that Oakley owed to Sheboygan County. One of the old fines was part of Oakley's sentence for a past criminal conviction; the other was actually a civil forfeiture imposed for a past ordinance violation. Together, the two monetary penalties totaled $2,602.80. Oakley later challenged the lawfulness of making payment of these old fines a condition of his probation. The majority upholds his challenge. I disagree and respectfully dissent.
¶ 36. There is no reason to believe that Oakley's probation has ever been revoked. Consequently, we can only speculate what would have happened had Oakley's probation been revoked for failure to pay the two unpaid fines. If Oakley's probation had been revoked for failure to pay those fines and he had been *545sentenced either to a state correctional institution or to jail for more than six months, I would not be filing a dissent. Rather, I would be concluding that those sentences were inconsistent with Wis. Stat. § 973.07. State v. Schuman, 173 Wis. 2d 743, 496 N.W.2d 684 (Ct. App. 1993); see also State ex rel. Pedersen v. Blessinger, 56 Wis. 2d 286, 201 N.W.2d 778 (1972).
¶ 37. In this case, the majority holds that making payment of the old fines a condition of probation for a felony that carries a potential maximum sentence of ten years "conflicts with the clear statutory mandate in Wis. Stat. § 973.07 that incarceration for failure to pay a fine is limited to incarceration in county jail for no more than six months." Majority op. at ¶ 27. Inasmuch as Oakley was never sentenced to more than six months, the majority grounds its decision on Oakley's "exposure" to a sentence of more than six months if his probation were revoked. Majority op. at ¶¶ 2, 3,11,15, 27. This exposure principle is disturbing because it bases this court's decision on the mere possibility of an unlawful sentence, and it creates' confusion for the future.
¶ 38. Wisconsin Stat. § 973.09 sets out the basic principles of probation. Subsection (l)(a) of the statute authorizes a court to impose "any conditions" of probation "which appear to be reasonable and appropriate." This language grants the circuit court "broad discretion." State v. Heyn, 155 Wis. 2d 621, 627, 456 N.W.2d 157 (1990). For instance, the existence of specific authority under § 973.09(l)(b) to require victim restitution does not inhibit or restrict the authority of a circuit court to impose "reasonable and appropriate" conditions requiring other payment under § 973.09(1)(a). State v. Connelly, 143 Wis. 2d 500, 505, 421 N.W.2d 859 (Ct. App. 1988). Of course, any condi*546tion of probation must serve one or more of the objectives of probation, namely, the rehabilitation of the offender, the restoration of the victim, and the protection of state and community interests. State v. Tarrell, 74 Wis. 2d 647, 653, 247 N.W.2d 696 (1976); Huggett v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 790, 798, 266 N.W.2d 403 (1978); State v. Brown, 174 Wis. 2d 550, 554, 497 N.W.2d 463 (Ct. App. 1993).1
¶ 39. Oakley challenges the proposition that the payment of old fines is a reasonable and appropriate condition of probation. The court never answers this challenge. It cannot embrace Oakley's contention without substantially narrowing the broad discretion given by statute to circuit courts. Requiring Oakley to pay his old monetary obligations is clearly in the community's interest. Permitting the Department of Corrections to oversee Oakley's progress and develop an orderly schedule of payment on his old fines facilitates payment of the overdue obligations without resorting to a separate court proceeding or imposing jail time. Depriving the State of the means to monitor and pressure Oakley for payment of his unpaid obligations forces the State to abandon the obligations or resort to incarceration. Vindicating Oakley's challenge does not promote Oakley's rehabilitation. Jailing Oakley is not in Oakley's interest if incarceration can be avoided.
*547¶ 40. The majority does not conclude that payment of the old fines is beyond the broad discretion of the circuit court under Wis. Stat. § 973.09(l)(a). Instead, it employs a theoretical device to reach the same result.
¶ 41. Under the exposure principle established by the majority, payment of an old unpaid fine may not be made a condition of probation for any felony because all felonies expose defendants to potential penalties of more than six months. Wis. Stat. § 939.50(3). Payment of an old unpaid fine may not be made a condition of probation for a Class A misdemeanor because all Class A misdemeanors expose defendants to a potential penalty of nine months. Wis. Stat. § 939.51(3)(a). In theory, then, payment of an old fine could only be made a condition of probation for a Class B misdemeanor (90 days maximum incarceration) or a Class C misdemeanor (30 days maximum incarceration). Such a condition would not serve as an effective enforcement mechanism because revocation of probation for these offenses would lead to maximum incarceration of only 90 days for a Class B misdemeanor, or 30 days for a Class C misdemeanor. Moreover, a court would be unlikely to impose repayment of an old fine of more than $1,000 as a condition of probation because the maximum fine that may be imposed for a Class B misdemeanor is only $1,000. The maximum fine for a Class C misdemeanor is only $500. The majority also determines that an old unpaid forfeiture may not be imposed as a condition of probation under any circumstances. Majority op. at n.2. Hence, without saying so explicitly, the majority implicitly rules that payment of an old unpaid fine may not be made a condition of probation, except, possibly, for a few minor misdemeanors in cir*548cumstances when such a condition is unlikely to be helpful.
¶ 42. The exposure principle lays the groundwork for future problems. Suppose a defendant is convicted of a Class C felony that subjects him to imprisonment not to exceed 10 years. Sentence is withheld and the court places the defendant on probation for three years. The court establishes three conditions of probation: (1) payment of a $2,000 fine; (2) payment of costs and assessments; and (3) performance of 200 hours of community service. What is the result if the defendant fails to satisfy any one of the conditions of probation? May the court, after revocation, sentence the defendant to prison for up to 10 years? Somewhat surprisingly, the answer must be "yes" — on grounds that the defendant has not been "exposed" to anything more than the law has authorized. If the answer were "no" — on grounds that Wis. Stat. § 973.07 limits the penalty for violations of these conditions to county jail time not to exceed six months — then we would be concluding that § 973.07 applies and the exposure principle set forth in this case was a fiction.
¶ 43. The appropriate way to decide this case is to hold that Wis. Stat. § 973.09(l)(a) authorizes the old fines condition of probation established by the Sheboy-gan County Circuit Court. However, Wis. Stat. § 973.07 prevents the court or anyone else from enforcing this specific condition by imposing incarceration for more than six months in the county jail. Here, sentence was withheld. Had sentence been imposed and stayed before Oakley was put on probation, his failure to comply with the old fines condition of probation could not have served as grounds for revocation. Probation authorities and the court would have had to find some *549other way to impose consequences for his defiant nonpayment.
Article I, § 9m, the "Victims of crime" amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution adopted in 1993, reemphasizes the importance of restitution to the victim as part of the criminal justice process. It provides in part that "This state shall ensure that crime victims have all of the following privileges and protections as provided by law:.. .restitution; compensation_"By implication, the amendment enlarges the objectives of probation.