Should we fear Proposition 47? Should we fear Proposition 47? Should we fear Proposition 47?

This being October of an even-numbered year, the Halloween season has an added dimension in California: spooky stories about ballot propositions.

Among this year’s most ghoulish tales are those being spun by opponents of Proposition 47, a measure that would change sentencing laws for those convicted of relatively minor, nonviolent crimes such as theft of items of minor value or possession of drugs for personal use.

Polls show strong support for the measure among an electorate that seems to feel the criminal justice system is spending far too many resources incarcerating people who are mentally ill or substance-abusers.

A poll by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California conducted last month showed 62 percent of likely voters support the measure, while just 25 percent oppose.

The measure’s principal opponents are police chiefs and prosecutors, although they are not unanimous in that opinion. Among Proposition 47’s leading supporters are the district attorneys of two of the state’s largest counties and the former police chief of California’s second and third largest cities.

Opponents have been polishing up their scare stories as Election Day approaches.

A couple of those stories were good enough to give me a fright, so I called a supporter with extensive knowledge of the criminal justice system to see if he could put me at ease. It turns out those Proposition 47 scare stores have about as much factual basis as the one about the couple that returned from lovers’ lane to find a prosthetic hand attached to the handle of their car.

George Eskin is a retired Santa Barbara County Superior Court judge. He is former assistant district attorney in both Ventura and Santa Barbara counties and a former chief assistant city attorney in Los Angeles. He is, incidentally, also the husband of Democratic state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson.

Because Proposition 47 would require any theft of property valued at less than $950 to be charged as a misdemeanor, rather than giving prosecutors the option of charging it as a felony instead, opponents argue that someone who stole a firearm would be protected from felony prosecution.

That sounds a little scary, I told Eskin. Should we be afraid?

“The question is, where are you going to steal a gun?” Eskin responded. If someone steals a gun from a home, he has committed residential burglary - a felony, Eskin noted.

If he steals it from a car, Eskin observed, that is a first-degree vehicular burglary, also a felony.

And if someone were to steal a firearm from a store that sells guns and then be caught with that gun in his possession, he would be guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm, the judge said. And that, too, is a felony.

Sounds like stealing a gun will remain a felony, so on to the next scare story.

What about the 10,000 people now in prison who would be eligible to have their sentences reduced if they are serving time for committing one of the crimes covered by Proposition 47? That sounds a little frightening, right, Judge Eskin?

Each of those individuals would have to petition the court to have his or her case reviewed.

“The judge will decide whether the person is a danger to public safety,” Eskin said. “If the judge determines that, they ain’t getting out.”

Indeed, the language of Proposition 47 specifies that the court may consider the individual’s criminal history, the extent of injury to victims, his disciplinary record while incarcerated and “any other evidence” a judge finds relevant to determine whether a new sentence would create an “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.”

On top of all that, Eskin noted, this provision of the initiative is “a one-time thing” that would apply to a group of inmates who are serving relatively short sentences and will likely be released in the next several months regardless of the outcome of Proposition 47.

Nothing to scream about there.

Eskin is a strong advocate for Proposition 47, and says his position is based on his personal experience with the criminal justice system.

“Under current practice, a homeless person who walks into a 7-Eleven and walks out with a bottle of wine is charged with second-degree commercial burglary, a felony,” he said. “I’ve seen it hundreds of times.

In each case, taxpayers spend thousands of dollars to keep such individuals, many of them guilty mainly of being mentally ill, locked up in jail instead of receiving less expensive, and more effective, mental health treatment.

Now that is a scary thought.

This being October of an even-numbered year, the Halloween season has an added dimension in California: spooky stories about ballot propositions.

Among this year’s most ghoulish tales are those being spun by opponents of Proposition 47, a measure that would change sentencing laws for those convicted of relatively minor, nonviolent crimes such as theft of items of minor value or possession of drugs for personal use.

Polls show strong support for the measure among an electorate that seems to feel the criminal justice system is spending far too many resources incarcerating people who are mentally ill or substance-abusers.

A poll by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California conducted last month showed 62 percent of likely voters support the measure, while just 25 percent oppose.

The measure’s principal opponents are police chiefs and prosecutors, although they are not unanimous in that opinion. Among Proposition 47’s leading supporters are the district attorneys of two of the state’s largest counties and the former police chief of California’s second and third largest cities.

Opponents have been polishing up their scare stories as Election Day approaches.

A couple of those stories were good enough to give me a fright, so I called a supporter with extensive knowledge of the criminal justice system to see if he could put me at ease. It turns out those Proposition 47 scare stores have about as much factual basis as the one about the couple that returned from lovers’ lane to find a prosthetic hand attached to the handle of their car.

George Eskin is a retired Santa Barbara County Superior Court judge. He is former assistant district attorney in both Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, and a former chief assistant city attorney in Los Angeles. He is, incidentally, also the husband of Democratic state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson.

Because Proposition 47 would require any theft of property valued at less than $950 to be charged as a misdemeanor, rather than giving prosecutors the option of charging it as a felony instead, opponents argue that someone who stole a firearm would be protected from felony prosecution.

That sounds a little scary, I told Eskin. Should we be afraid?

“The question is, where are you going to steal a gun?” Eskin responded. If someone steals a gun from a home, he has committed residential burglary - a felony, Eskin noted.

If he steals it from a car, Eskin observed, that is a first-degree vehicular burglary, also a felony.

And if someone were to steal a firearm from a store that sells guns and then be caught with that gun in his possession, he would be guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm, the judge said. And that, too, is a felony.

Sounds like stealing a gun will remain a felony, so on to the next scare story.

What about the 10,000 people now in prison who would be eligible to have their sentences reduced if they are serving time for committing one of the crimes covered by Proposition 47? That sounds a little frightening, right, Judge Eskin?

Each of those individuals would have to petition the court to have his or her case reviewed.

“They judge will decide whether the person is a danger to public safety,” Eskin said. “If the judge determines that, they ain’t getting out.”

Indeed, the language of Proposition 47 specifies that the court may consider the individual’s criminal history, the extent of injury to victims, his disciplinary record while incarcerated and “any other evidence” a judge finds relevant to determine whether a new sentence would create an “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.”

On top of all that, Eskin noted, this provision of the initiative is “a one-time thing” that would apply to a group of inmates who are serving relatively short sentences and will likely be released in the next several months regardless of the outcome of Proposition 47.

Nothing to scream about there.

Eskin is a strong advocate for Proposition 47, and says his position is based on his personal experience with the criminal justice system.

“Under current practice, a homeless person who walks into a 7-Eleven and walks out with a bottle of wine is charged with second-degree commercial burglary, a felony,” he said. “I’ve seen it hundreds of times.

In each case, taxpayers spend thousands of dollars to keep such individuals, many of them guilty mainly of being mentally ill, locked up in jail instead of receiving less expensive, and more effective, mental health treatment.

Now that is a scary thought.

Timm Herdt is a columnist for the Ventura County Star.

This being October of an even-numbered year, the Halloween season has an added dimension in California: spooky stories about ballot propositions.

Among this year’s most ghoulish tales are those being spun by opponents of Proposition 47, a measure that would change sentencing laws for those convicted of relatively minor, nonviolent crimes such as theft of items of minor value or possession of drugs for personal use.

Polls show strong support for the measure among an electorate that seems to feel the criminal justice system is spending far too many resources incarcerating people who are mentally ill or substance-abusers.

A poll by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California conducted last month showed 62 percent of likely voters support the measure, while just 25 percent oppose.

The measure’s principal opponents are police chiefs and prosecutors, although they are not unanimous in that opinion. Among Proposition 47’s leading supporters are the district attorneys of two of the state’s largest counties and the former police chief of California’s second and third largest cities.

Opponents have been polishing up their scare stories as Election Day approaches.

A couple of those stories were good enough to give me a fright, so I called a supporter with extensive knowledge of the criminal justice system to see if he could put me at ease. It turns out those Proposition 47 scare stores have about as much factual basis as the one about the couple that returned from lovers’ lane to find a prosthetic hand attached to the handle of their car.

George Eskin is a retired Santa Barbara County Superior Court judge. He is former assistant district attorney in both Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, and a former chief assistant city attorney in Los Angeles. He is, incidentally, also the husband of Democratic state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson.

Because Proposition 47 would require any theft of property valued at less than $950 to be charged as a misdemeanor, rather than giving prosecutors the option of charging it as a felony instead, opponents argue that someone who stole a firearm would be protected from felony prosecution.

That sounds a little scary, I told Eskin. Should we be afraid?

“The question is, where are you going to steal a gun?” Eskin responded. If someone steals a gun from a home, he has committed residential burglary - a felony, Eskin noted.

If he steals it from a car, Eskin observed, that is a first-degree vehicular burglary, also a felony.

And if someone were to steal a firearm from a store that sells guns and then be caught with that gun in his possession, he would be guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm, the judge said. And that, too, is a felony.

Sounds like stealing a gun will remain a felony, so on to the next scare story.

What about the 10,000 people now in prison who would be eligible to have their sentences reduced if they are serving time for committing one of the crimes covered by Proposition 47? That sounds a little frightening, right, Judge Eskin?

Each of those individuals would have to petition the court to have his or her case reviewed.

“They judge will decide whether the person is a danger to public safety,” Eskin said. “If the judge determines that, they ain’t getting out.”

Indeed, the language of Proposition 47 specifies that the court may consider the individual’s criminal history, the extent of injury to victims, his disciplinary record while incarcerated and “any other evidence” a judge finds relevant to determine whether a new sentence would create an “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.”

On top of all that, Eskin noted, this provision of the initiative is “a one-time thing” that would apply to a group of inmates who are serving relatively short sentences and will likely be released in the next several months regardless of the outcome of Proposition 47.

Nothing to scream about there.

Eskin is a strong advocate for Proposition 47, and says his position is based on his personal experience with the criminal justice system.

“Under current practice, a homeless person who walks into a 7-Eleven and walks out with a bottle of wine is charged with second-degree commercial burglary, a felony,” he said. “I’ve seen it hundreds of times.

In each case, taxpayers spend thousands of dollars to keep such individuals, many of them guilty mainly of being mentally ill, locked up in jail instead of receiving less expensive, and more effective, mental health treatment.

Now that is a scary thought.

Timm Herdt is a columnist for the Ventura County Star.