This attitude is even more stark in the Justice system. It's way cheaper to buy a homeless person a sandwich than to jail them for 5 years after they steal one.

This attitude is even more stark in the Justice system. It's way cheaper to buy a homeless person a sandwich than to jail them for 5 years after they steal one. (A real situation, per a DA friend of mine, thanks to mandatory minimums and 3 strike laws.) You see the same thing with drugs: we prefer lengthy, expensive jail sentences to lengthy, expensive treatment. Why are people more willing to fund punitive programs than assistance programs that could preempt crimes? I have several theories: 1. Post hoc measures are more inherently more certain. You know that the treatment is being applied in the specific cases you want. With prevention it's impossible to know if any given intervention accomplished something, and very difficult to assess if the overall program is effective. 2. The USA specifically has a strong individualist streak. This has roots in a combination of (1) the cowboy myth / fronteir legacy of relatively infinite living space, (2) Protestant Christianity, (3) capitalism, especially post WW2 consumerism. I recently heard a talk that argued that Regan synthesized these very effectively, pushing us forward from the Great Society era, which was more collectivist. The emphasis on individualism created contrast with the communist Soviet Union.