This is my reasoning, I believe when someone violates the property rights of another, it is the victim, and only the victim, who can decide what a just punishment is. Justice and revenge are synonyms to me. Just because you may think a punishment is "too harsh" does not give you the right to intervene in someone seeking restitution when they have been wronged.

I don't believe in protecting the rights of people who have violated the rights of another, when you violate someones person or property, you lose all claim to personhood and property yourself. Anything else would be hypocracy.

So if someone were to steal an item from someone else, the victim says "you owe me 100x the market value, for violating my property", if the theif[sic] cannot pay, he remains in debt, if he fails to meet his repayments of that debt, he should be sent to a forced labour camp, so that the debt can be payed off.

If anyone doesn't like this, just remember, you are fighting for the "rights" of someone who violated the NAP against someone who was a victim of a rights violation. Secondly, if you believe you have the right to defend your personhood and property, the victim has every right to kill their agressor in self defence, forced labour would be a less extreme resolution. And if you think, "well the theif should only have to pay back market price", remember value is subjective, you have no right to tell the victim how they should value what was stolen from them.