Stefan says, "But why should it be the bank's responsibility to provide restitution? Does that feel right just because banks have money? Or is there a reason why victims of this crime should get compensation when victims of so many other crimes don't?"

I think this is mostly because there should be some means of restitution, if possible, for crimes, and there is a handy way to do this. Banks are granted permission to manage and handle money on behalf of customers and charge a premium for doing it; the reasonable trade-off for this is that the bank has to make a customer good again in some situations even if the fault is not actually the bank's. This is the sort of argument that enabled the creation of credit cards: the agreement looks something like, ok, we the people give you permission to loan us money and charge interest for doing so, and the counterbalance for that is that you can't be TOO egregious with interest rates, and if the card is stolen or misused then you have to recompense the owner even though it will cost you money to do so. Some people might not recognise that being permitted to run a bank is a privilege and not a right, mind you.