I do not believe in punishment. In my opinion the crime-punishment system is deeply wrong and misguided and in general irrational. Eye-for-an-eye approach eventually will leave all blind.
Property damage should be appropriately compensated by the offender + some penalty again in matter of property/capital.
Violent offenders should be subjected to therapy to treat their violent tendencies and have their freedom limited only for the sake of public safety/prevention of further violence and not as form of punishment.
"Criminal" activities that result in no damage or harm should not be considered crimes at all.
Some years ago I spent some time developing "Criminal treatment and prevention code", opposing to the typical "Penal code" that emphasizes penalty over correction and damage mitigation... Perhaps someday I will complete and publish it.

I have known various low-level criminals over the years, some of whom were "going straight" and others who, usually to fund a drug problem, were still active. Not one of them ever said that going to prison convinced them to change their ways - in fact, most of them saw it as a mere occupational risk, or even as a holiday from the real world of work, bills and so on. We can also see from countries such as the USA, where very large numbers of people are imprisoned and yet crime rates remain high, that imprisonment on its own is not a deterrent to people who have already embarked on a life of crime. I wonder if making criminals pay compensation in the way you suggest would be any different, or if criminals would just see it as something they have to put up with and then go and commit another crime in order to cover the costs of the payments they're compelled to make?.

0.91% of the US population is incarcerated in federal, state and county prisons, with another 2.98% under correctional supervision. Meanwhile, only 0.08% of the Norwegian population are in prison. While that's partially because Norway uses prison as punishment far less than the US (see footnote below), it's notable that far fewer Norwegians go back to prison after release - only 20% compared to more than 76% in the US, thanks to the emphasis placed on rehabilitation by the Norwegian judiciary.

So, it seems that although most of us agree that punishment should be handed out to criminals (disagreement on what form that punishment should take and how long the criminal should be punished is a different matter entirely, of course), punishment doesn't have much to do with persuading people to live honest lives (indeed, it's not unknown for low-level criminals such as petty thieves and cannabis users to develop a heroin addiction in prison and come out needing to commit serious crimes in order to fund their habit.This, I feel, is likely to hold true for financial punishment as well as imprisonment.

(Footnote: this isn't only because Norway suffers far lower levels of crime than the USA; it's also because the country is more liberal and, some might say, because it doesn't rely on a very large captive workforce to carry out manual tasks for extremely low pay in order to be able to compete with far eastern economies.)

I am re-reading this thread and seeing very little about the consequences of crime beyond revenge and unrelenting punishment. How can we expect our culture to grow and heal if all we ever do is hurt people whenever we can, as hard as we can?

Compensation is problematic. I believe China has a system whereby if you injure someone, you're responsible for any resulting medical treatment, which may be for life if you permanently disable them. Kill them outright, and you have to pay a one-off lump sum of compensation to their families. The results? People injuring others in car accidents, reversing and finishing off the job. It also raises the issue of false claims from people simply looking for a payout. An increasing problem in compensation culture. I feel it's best to let criminal law deal with punishment. People are free to bring civil proceedings with respect to compensation. Indeed, in the OJ Simpson case, he was acquitted at criminal trial, since the need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt apparently wasn't satisfied. He lost the compensation claim against him in civil court, because that operates on balance of probability.

There's a separate argument for confiscating ill gotten gains. If a criminal has trappings of wealth that far exceed their legitimate means, then it's right to confiscate those. If a criminal has money squirrelled away, then it should be acceptable to confiscate property and money from them as and when it comes to light, even a number of years after their conviction is spent.

Though such a system needs to be carefully and independently policed to avoid authorities confiscating property on trumped up or trivial charges.

As for deterring criminals, nothing works for some people. Yes, for most of us, the fear of prison is enough to deter us from doing anything that might put us in there. Others are far more impulsive or desperate, and don't think that far ahead.

define criminal

Your ideas make a lot of sense to me. I have given a lot of thought about crime and punishment, too. I believe if it was a more set cultural practice, it possibly would lower crime over the long run. Because, from childhood you would learn the 'ways' of punishment for your mistakes. Like a seed planted in the mind! But, this will hardly apply to crimes committed by a mentally ill person. They too, should make amends, but how? That leaves acts committed in the heat of passion, that the planted seed of knowledge...failed to deter! On the whole, I believe we would create a more cohesive social order, when clear norms are in place. Not simply a law, that you will be put to death, if you commit murder! (That is but one.) The present system in this country...weighs heavily on how good (or clever), your attorney is and luck with the jury pool. Remember how trials are sometimes moved to another location, in order to get a different jury pool? So lack of money, is going to put a heavy 'weight' on a 'just' outcome! Not to mention who and how well informed the people on the jury are? And, in this country, certain geographical areas have people with a completely different mind sets, as to social norms (religions)! Sure, we have laws (upon laws), and a judge is intrusted to instruct the jury, but here again...even a judge can hold a different opinion about any law! Look at our Supreme Court! Something should be developed that carries more equal weight, regardless of your financial standing in our society...where justice is concerned.

I didn't find a poll choice with which I can agree. The problem with the poll questions is that thing called "punishment." The way it is inflicted in most jurisdictions is not punishment but is in fact nothing more than revenge. And in no way is it rehabilitation nor is it a deterrent. I have no idea what some people think punishment does that is useful.
Why not go around the world and see how other people do it, and what results they get? Find something that actually works, saves citizens, and reduces crime?

I can see both pros and cons for the restitution argument. To me a larger problem is of white collar crime not being seen as heinous as blue collar. A bank manager who is already a millionaire steals a million dollars and gets 10 years and a Joe Blow steals a thousand at the local market and gets 20 years. I don't really know how to word the law but it needs to have more fairness. I know a lot of what a person gets away with is how much he can pay in legal fees.

If compensation becomes a focal point in the justice system as you have described, I think false accusations will became a huge problem. People will see opportunities to profit and will find ways take advantage of the system. Large sums of money being at stake will make it more difficult for justice to be impartial.

I think criminals should be punished. Compensation should be extracted if it is financially viable but also, the possibility of rehabilitation should not be ignored.