Well, Rothbard is clear that retribution is the foundation of restitution. Humans have an instincts for both, but most people would probably prefer being made whole if possible. After all, if I burned down your house and all your belongings within it, would you rather do the same to me or would you rather magically undo the damage entirely? Would rape victims rather rape their rapist or have the damage undone entirely? Would families of murder victims rather kill the murderer or undo the murder and have their loved one brought back as if nothing happened?
I think the answer is obvious that most people would prefer the second option. But we cannot magically undo crimes, so restitution only goes so far, but it is an attempt to make the victim whole again. But how do you get a criminal to make his victim whole? After all, unless he grows a conscience, what reason would he have for doing this? You threaten him with retribution. How much violence do you threaten him with? The same that he has done to you. Why? It’s reciprocal. There is no other basis for it. You either find that to be just or you don’t. There are people like Gandhi that felt violence was never just, even defensive violence. So I don’t think Rothbard’s arguments or mine will necessarily convince you that this is the one right way of viewing justice, but I do think it’s a very consistent way.