If I understand you, you're suggesting a course of corrective action that doesn't simply look at a given event (e.g. robbing a woman at knifepoint) when suggesting punishment for a crime. This is already the case in US courts, wherein judges are allowed to know prior convictions and extenuating circumstances. Counseling and treatment is already a part of the legal process.
More contentiously, there's always a sob story that can be spun for any given criminal, but ultimately, I believe it dangerous to hand-wave away the role of personal agency. Being born poor is obviously not a personal choice, but actions taken along the way (having a child when young), taking the risk with illegal and highly addictive drugs, committing violent crime, are conscious acts that unsurprisingly make it harder to get out of poverty. The consequences of those actions is likely particularly known in lower income areas.
You're thinking about this from the position of a logical person who cares about the welfare of others. Decriminalizing assault and theft is asking victims to take part in a system in which they pay money to support people who are causing harm.
More contentiously, there's always a sob story that can be spun for any given criminal, but ultimately, I believe it dangerous to hand-wave away the role of personal agency. Being born poor is obviously not a personal choice, but actions taken along the way (having a child when young), taking the risk with illegal and highly addictive drugs, committing violent crime, are conscious acts that unsurprisingly make it harder to get out of poverty. The consequences of those actions is likely particularly known in lower income areas.
You're thinking about this from the position of a logical person who cares about the welfare of others. Decriminalizing assault and theft is asking victims to take part in a system in which they pay money to support people who are causing harm.