Be continuous rather than binary: For at least some cases, it shouldn't be all-or-nothing, but the compensation paid to the alleged victim should vary with the probability of guilt the jury finds.

I basically agree here, though it should be noted that determining exactly how the compensation should vary with the probability would be a difficult problem. (You certainly wouldn't want it to be directly proportional; I would after all shudder to think of the LW "verdict" imposing a sentence of (0.35)(26) = 9.1 years on poor Amanda Knox.)

Also, punishments should be amplified by the inverse of the recovery rate (basically, the rate at which that crime is solved), with the extra compensation going to a victims' fund to pay those for whom no suspect is ever caught.

I think I agree, provided that what you mean by the "rate at which the crime is solved" is the length of time it took for that particular case to be solved, and not some sort of average for crimes in the same "category".

The issue of jail should be less coupled to the issue of compensation and guilt. >Whether someone is jailed should be determined by how dangerous they are expected to be, as judged by some insurer, whether or not they are found guilty. Whether they should pay compensation or be punished should be determined by causal culpability, whether or not the accused is generally dangerous

I may end up agreeing with the underlying idea here, but as it stands, I'm confused by this. Most people view jail as punishment; do you not?

(In theory, really, the whole notion of punishment probably ought to go out the window, and legal remedies should be designed only with the purposes of compensating victims and preventing future offenses. Of course, there may not be much practical difference, since this would still presumably involve things like e.g. locking people up in institutions, etc.)