[bullytw2019]

> 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.)

[luckylion]

> You want different types of specialists to deal with victims vs bullies.

Both cost money (=resources). Money is limited. Who do we focus on?

As for that theory on "no excuses": UBI is more or less reality in large parts of Europe, yet crime still exists.

[n0rbwah]

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.

[luckylion]

That's why I added "more or less". Housing, health insurance and essentials being taken care of by the state + cash money is UBI for these intents and purposes. It's only given to the poor, and society would prefer if you didn't require assistance, but the argument was that it would decrease crime because people needn't worry about finances as much, for which it serves as functionally equivalent. Whether you call it UBI, Hartz 4, Kontanthjælp or something else is mostly semantics with regards to "if people get money, they won't commit crimes".

UBI has other parts which aren't covered in that regard, but those aren't relevant to the question of crime motivated by poverty.