Restorative justice has emerged as an influential alternative to conventional punitive approaches within contemporary criminal justice systems. This study investigates the legal foundations, implementation strategies, and policy outcomes associated with restorative justice programs across multiple jurisdictions. Employing a comparative socio-legal methodology, the research examines statutory provisions, judicial practices, and institutional frameworks governing victim-offender mediation, community conferencing, and restorative sentencing mechanisms. The analysis highlights the growing recognition of restorative principles as instruments for enhancing victim participation, offender accountability, and community engagement. Findings indicate that jurisdictions adopting restorative models frequently report improvements in participant satisfaction and procedural legitimacy while maintaining important safeguards for due process and fairness. However, the study also identifies challenges involving consistency of implementation, resource allocation, and judicial integration. The paper evaluates the compatibility of restorative approaches with established principles of criminal jurisprudence and examines their potential role in reducing recidivism and promoting social reconciliation. By synthesizing comparative legal experiences, the research argues that restorative justice represents a significant development in modern criminal policy. The findings support the adoption of carefully regulated restorative mechanisms capable of complementing traditional criminal justice processes while advancing broader objectives of justice, accountability, and social cohesion.