I completely disagree. It is perfectly acceptable that conviction for a felony carries a two-part or even a three-part sentence. The first part of the sentence is a temporary loss of many of your constitutional rights (prison), the second part is a loss of a smaller, but still significant, number of rights (probation or parole) and the third part is a loss of an even smaller number of rights (firearms, voting, certain occupational certificates, registration as a sex offender, etc.).
There is nothing wrong, or unjust, with multi-part sentences, they are common throughout the US and many other countries. The only unjust part might come if additions to the losses were made after the crime were committed. But, with modern laws, the multi-part penalties are codified long before the crime.
Just where in the constitution does it say there can only be one penalty for a crime? And constitution law by examples from TV shows does not count.
I was expressing what some folks think, not taking a pro or con position myself.
I am not in general disagreement with you, though I think many 2nd, third & X parts of sentences ought to be time or conditional limited and not permanent. I do believe that reform and the condition of “restitution paid” should be possible and not foreclosed.