One would expect that all the members of a compassionate society would take on the responsibility to aid those that suffered harm (in some proportion to their ability to render aid, e.g. because of greater financial means), and provide nurturing and opportunity for as many as possible regardless of why nurturing was needed.

Absent a time machine that allows us to actually fix past problems, it is not completely clear to me that it is practical to aim for more than this. There are difficulties regarding assignment of blame, measurement of harm, what kinds of acts qualify, and so on, which are all quite complex issues to even discuss, let alone resolve on a case-by-case basis.

In the case of your murder example, generally in society we have not assigned responsibility for the well-being of the grandchildren of the murdered to the grandchildren of the murderer: we shift that burden to society as a whole. I think you meant this as an analogy, but why should it be an analogy? We could literally decide that this is how things are done: you, yourself, are responsible for setting right any murders committed by your relatives. Is this a good idea? Generally, liberalism has answered the question with a "no", as it strongly endorses individualism: you are responsible for your own actions, not those of kin. Exodus 34:7 has a different idea: "Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation." One could debate the relative merits of each approach and the responsibilities we thought were appropriate for individuals to take on.

In any case, it is true--and I said as much in the original article--that ascribing rights, or calling out violations of rights, does help focus attention on the problems and/or the goal that we want to achieve. I just think it's best to mostly talk about responsibilities once the "coating into rights" is done, as you put it. The goal isn't likely to achieve itself; someone has to help make it happen, so we should identify who, and what they ought to do. (And if "they" is "us", we should get moving.)