That would be the purely financial angle (provided that it's accurate), it doesn't take into account who deserves the help more (which is a moral judgement and is hard to agree on) and how much more. If somebody attacks somebody else and hurts themselves in the process and they both end up needing a new kidney and only one transplant is available, who gets it?
Instead of punishing robbers, why don't we just give them enough money to live luxurious lives so they aren't tempted to rob any more people?
> If somebody attacks somebody else and hurts themselves in the process and they both end up needing a new kidney and only one transplant is available, who gets it?
bad analogy, because in this case it's more like one person's kidney got destroyed and the other lost a lung.
You want different types of specialists to deal with victims vs bullies. Assigning the wrong type will probably just make things worse.
> Instead of punishing robbers, why don't we just give them enough money to live luxurious lives so they aren't tempted to rob any more people?
One could argue that's part of the idea behind Universal Basic Income. That if your needs are being met by UBI, you really "shouldn't" have a reason to need to rob, so at that point they don't have any excuses. (I have skepticism about that in practice, but I get the concept at least.)
UBI isn't a reality in large parts of Europe. There might be a handful of local experiments here and there but nothing on the scale that "large parts of Europe" suggests.