The aim of jurisprudence is to provide guidance in how to evaluate the justice of disputing practices. Although it is far too early to articulate a jurisprudence of restorative justice, since innovation in restorative practices is rapidly occurring, there is a clear consensus on one jurisprudential issue; i.e., that restorative justice processes should never exceed the upper limits on punishment enforced by the courts for the criminal offense under consideration. Also, there is near universal consensus among restorative justice advocates that fundamental human rights ought to be respected in restorative justice processes. The argument is about what the list of rights ought to be. In discussing how consensus on restorative jurisprudence might be implemented, the chapter discusses the importance of "contextual" justice. Contextual justice does not require that similar crimes consistently receive equal punishment. Under the forums of restorative justice, the demands and restrictions placed on an offender will depend on how punitive or forgiving the victims and others in the circle of decisionmaking may be. Restorative justice has no easy resolution of the dilemma that equal justice for victims is incompatible with equal justice for offenders. The difficulty of variable responses to similar offenses, however, does not warrant an absolute commitment to the narrow road of proportional punishment. Restorative justice focuses on the reparation of harm for the particular persons and contexts involved in the harm. This holds a better promise for restorative outcomes that include repair, transformation, empowerment with others, and limits on the exercise of power over others. 3 notes