The author acknowledges that this thesis is in conflict both with advocates of restorative justice and those critics of restorative justice who argue for a "just deserts" retributivism. This chapter argues that once there is a clear understanding of the concepts of restoration and of punishment, the apparent conflict between them dissolves; criminal punishment should have the aim of restoration, and restorative justice programs should aim to impose appropriate kinds of punishment. In discussing mediation as both a restorative and punitive process, the chapter focuses on the process of the offender making a suitable moral reparation for the harm done. It is thus appropriate for reparation deemed suitable by the victim to be made mandatory for the offender, even though he or she may not agree to it. The mediation process must include censure of the offender, his or her recognition of the full measure of harm he or she has caused, an apology, and reparation. This becomes restorative punishment to the extent that something is imposed upon or required of the offender, and it is intended to be burdensome or painful. Contrary to "just deserts" retributive punishment, which views punishment as an end in itself, restorative punishment is part of the difficult process of behavioral and psychological change required to remedy the harm that the offender's criminal behavior has caused. 22 notes