The "restorative justice" paradigm, by moving beyond the logic of retribution and traditional rehabilitation, has placed the “restoration of relationships” between the offender, the victim, and society at the center of criminal policy. Relying on secular and “de-statized” structural foundations, it replaces formal mechanisms with consensual processes. Nevertheless, this paradigmatic shift faces a fundamental question: Can “restoring relationships,” without a coherent program for “reconstructing the offender’s character,” lead to a stable and security-generating outcome? This study adopts “character reconstruction of the offender” as a “theoretical scale,” critically evaluating the restorative justice paradigm from the perspective of a “rehabilitative penal governance model” in Imamiyyah jurisprudence.

The research method is “descriptive-analytical” with a “comparative-critical” approach, based on ijtihadi inference from the Qur’an, hadiths, and the opinions of Imamiyyah jurists. This evaluation is conducted at three levels: foundations, structure, and function. The findings indicate that, at the foundational level, the restorative paradigm lacks an innate-based anthropology, rendering it incapable of defining the offender’s “existential change” and justifying the necessity of “purification.” Structurally, its “de-statization” deprives it of a specialized and authoritative caretaker (the ruler as a social physician). In contrast, the Imamiyyah jurisprudential model, relying on monotheistic foundations, offers a “guardianship-based” structure wherein the ruler, through mechanisms such as discerning repentance, granting conditional pardon upon reform, and applying differentiated policies of concealment and exposure, manages the reconstruction process. The function of this structure is a “synergistic system” in which principles of criminalization (such as distributing responsibility according to freedom and breaking crime-based relations), educational mechanisms (repentance, pardon, concealment), and punishment principles (proportionality and maximal absorption) reinforce one another to achieve “character reconstruction” and simultaneously ensure “public security.” The result is that the “rehabilitative penal governance” model represents a “third path” beyond common dualisms and offers specific practical implications for reforming Iran’s judicial system.