There are three ways in which the principles of restorative justice differ from the traditional reparative model. First, the focus of the current system is the state, which demands accountability and defines that as punishment. The restorative model changes the focus to the victim. Although accountability is still central, it is a broader and more personal definition that holds the offender accountable to the victim who has been harmed and the community that has been disrupted. Second, that process is also distinct from the current one, which is adversarial and allows professional surrogates, such as attorney, to replace the principals. At best, the victim is a witness in the proceedings. With restorative justice, the victim is more involved and has the opportunity to ask questions. Further, the offender can play a role in making amends to the victim. Third, and perhaps most critical, the outcome in restorative justice, to right the wrong and repair the damage, is the critical measure of justice. If incarceration is required for public safety, this is part of the resolution. This does not, however, relieve the offender of the obligation to repay the victim or perform community service to compensate for the societal impact of the crime. Some programs that reflect the concepts of restorative justice are restitution, community service, and community-based victim-offender mediation. This address also reviews some of the research that shows the value and some of the limits of restorative justice as it is applied at various stages of criminal justice processing.