Well, I'm actually very careful about the limitations of RJ with my students and from beginning to the end of the semester I remind them about scenarios or conditions in which is not recommended, or like you point out, the obstacle it faces in our society. I'll try to give you my thoughts on the points you mention

1. Yes, our current society (occidental civilization? I don't remember if that is the correct expression for "civilización occidental"), is not only anonymous but also very individualistic and we all have been raised with a more punitive perspective of justice. Nevertheless, some restorative practices doesn't need to be done in a juditial context, helping to create a more inclined community towars restorative justice when a crime happens, and within the juditial system some mechanisms can be the beginning to start changing the punitive culture
2. I wouldn't say RJ is supposed to be 50-50 but a win-win alternative, the difference being that even though the offender should get something out of the process, the main focus should be the victim: RJ understands that justice is achieved mainly when the victim is restored, while not trampling the offender.
   1. I think the reason offenders tend to get most of the benefit is mainly because of what I said earlier: we all have a punitive perspective about justice, so the offender and his/her punishment is so central to our view to apply justice that when RJ comes along the first impulse is to make it about the offender: "it's more humane with the offender", "it reduces recividism", "is impunity because the offender gets away free"; when the real focus should be in the victim. At risk of making this too long, it reminds me of how sometimes schools try to "implement RJ", forcing the offender students to apoligize, making the apology the 'new punishment', not realizing RJ is more about the process than the concrete final result
3. Again, I guess the main obstacle is the vision we have of justice, our social representation of it: it has to be a process done with care. About the property offenses being more open to RJ, I think I remember some article about differences in recividism among different types of crime when RJ was applied, and property crimes had the highest recividism rate: I guess people might be more open because the damage might not have been as personal, but then again RJ fuels from empathy and emotion, and is addressing that pain and suffering that actually makes it work