First, let us offer a general word of advice on ballot measures: When in doubt, “no” almost always is an honorable vote.

Oregon history is filled with well-meaning ballot measures that ended up being textbook examples of the law of unintended consequences. And many of the measures that have been put in front of voters truthfully belong in front of the Legislature, where these items at least get a shot at being debated and decided on their merits and supporters and opponents can try to build coherent cases.

We still are pondering some of the 12 state measures facing us this election, but it’s a safe bet that we’ll be leaning heavily on the “no” side of the ballot. We recommend you do the same.

Today, let us turn our attention to the two competing property-crime measures on the ballot, Measure 57 and Measure 61. We recommend “no” votes on both measures.

Both measures aim to increase sentences for property crimes. Measure 57 is the one that was crafted by legislators after it became clear that Measure 61 was going to make the ballot. (If both pass, the measure with the most votes becomes law.)

Measure 57 is somewhat easier on the taxpayer than Measure 61, which is estimated to add 4,100 to 6,300 inmates to Oregon’s prison population of about 13,600. Measure 61 is estimated to cost $8 million to $10 million next year; the price tag could increase to as much as $274 million per year after its fourth year. We’ll be building plenty of new prison cells.

By contrast, Measure 57 is estimated to cost $9 million or so its first year, and then increase to about $143 million per year after its fourth year.

Measure 61 doesn’t include a penny for treatment of the drug addictions that fuel so much property crime; that’s another advantage of Measure 57.

Regardless, this is all money that comes out of the general fund. Every cent that goes to pay for one of these measures is a cent that doesn’t go to education or health care or economic development — unless you’re in the business of building prisons.

We cannot afford either of these measures. And, considering recent FBI reports that said property crime in Oregon has declined 20 percent over the last two years, the need for either is questionable.

We have another, more philosophical, argument against both of these measures: We’ve already handcuffed our judges with previous sentencing measures, most notably Measure 11, which mandated minimum sentences for certain violent crimes. We pay judges to decide sentences on the merits of each case, to protect society, to rehabilitate when possible, to punish when appropriate — and to show mercy when appropriate. If a judge consistently imposes sentences that are out of line with community expectations, the proper response is to toss the rascal out during the next election. We fail to see what is to be gained by denying judges the latitude they sometimes need to make sure justice is served in each specific case.

If you must vote for one of the property-crime measures, Measure 57 is the one to back.

But during our conversations with legislators about both measures, the most enthusiastic case we got for Measure 57 essentially boiled down to this: It isn’t as bad as Measure 61.

We agree with that assessment. But that’s not a good enough case for Measure 57. Vote “no” on both measures.

CORRECTION

This correction has been made in the version above:

Measure 57 is estimated to cost $9 million or so in its first year and then to increase to about $143 million per year after its fourth year.

Due to an editor’s error, the number of the property crime measure that would have this fiscal effect was incorrect in the Oct. 8 editorial as originally posted.

The Gazette-Times regrets the error.