A man breaks into a grocery store. His objective? To feed his family. I know a man who did this. And he got caught. He was found guilty and sent to jail. It was back in the early 1960s.

The safety net wasn’t what it is today. Is that an excuse? Good question. And we, as a society, need to answer it.

Why this matters is simple. We are now in a free-fall that California started in 2014. That’s when voters bought the Kool-Aid that is Proposition 47. It was wrapped in the siren song of a catchy name. Supporters called it the “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act.”

The main focus of the measure was explained away as “adjusting for inflation.” In doing so, it would reduce the number of people in prison. And it would make California safer and reduce crime.

Want three guesses what we’re talking about? It is part of the reason why Union Square in San Francisco is looking like a retail ghost town these days. Proposition 47 raised the threshold for “shoplifting” from $400 to $950.

If you recall, part of the 2014 campaign was fueled by stories similar to that of the man I referenced above. One in particular, was a man sent to prison on the “third strike.” The incident that was ballyhooed was his theft of an $8 sandwich.

Now for the fun part. Some of the progressives of the day pushing Proposition 47 had been lambasting conservatives for 20-plus years for Ronald Reagan’s infamous Cadillac and welfare fraud reference. You know the one. And there likely were a handful of such examples of fraud. But that didn’t stop the holier-than-thou among the ranks of the conservatives from over amplifying the Cadillac thing.

Funny thing, but those holier-than-thou who were among backers of Proposition 47 did their own version of the Cadillac/welfare fraud semi-ruse. They pushed the narrative that the “third strike” was sending thousands of people to prison for a series of $10 thefts. Not exactly the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Turning the tables is fair game, you say? The ends justify the means, right? But here’s the kicker. Both sides play to win and that’s the problem. They treat public policy as a game, not a calling. The ends justify the means, which is apparently winning and not holistic problem solving.

Of course, none of this would have happened if it wasn’t for us. Yes, you and me the voters. Some of us bought the Cadillac welfare fraud bit. Others of us bought that prisons are filled with people who stole three $8 sandwiches three different times. The problem is we bought it.

We don’t want to do the heavy lifting. The truth is out there but we don’t want to do the work. What work, you ask? Opening your mind, seeing the other side, researching facts. And that includes facts that don’t fit a preconceived notion. Facts that might make us uncomfortable.

So, here’s a fun fact. Society has a nasty habit. We tend to veer hard left, then we veer hard right and we do it over and over again. It happens because we go from one extreme to another. It’s a game played by those on the far left and those on the far right. They see things in pure black and white or more aptly pure red and pure blue. They operate on the assumption the only right way is to be in 100 percent lockstep with what they believe.

Those not on the extremes of the right or left that gravitate toward the middle have no convictions, right? After all, how can you be pro-choice, support the death penalty, have no issue with gay marriage and be a backer of gun rights?

Or how can anyone be anti-abortion, be for more gun control, oppose the death penalty, and embrace LGBTQ lifestyles?

Go ahead. Come up with any four combinations. The only “right” and “winning” combos line up as four red cherries or as four blue diamonds. All others are losing hands when compared to being perfectly aligned.

That, however, is what is wrong with us. All crime is not alike. Stealing to feed your family isn’t the same as stealing to fence items at flea markets, on the Internet or at garage sales.

Stealing is stealing, right? Then why aren’t all homicides alike? Why do we have first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and justifiable homicide? We do because of nuances tied to the taking of another’s life.

So why do we have rules that treat all $900 thefts alike? Shouldn’t motives or situations be factored into the equation? Instead, we absolve all such thefts of $900 of any real consequence by reducing them to paper tiger misdemeanors.

Is anyone really surprised that it’s open season on stores or that porch pirates roam the streets in growing numbers? There are no consequences.

Being hungry does not justify stealing. But it is still a shade different than making a living by stealing.

If you’re not willing to differentiate because you see stealing in absolute black and white, then how can you align that with drawing a difference between first-degree murder and manslaughter?

Most of us would agree taking a life is wrong. But we allow mitigating circumstances to be taken into account.

Most of us would also agree stealing is wrong. But instead of mitigating circumstance determining the justice system’s response, we impose dollar thresholds per incident.

So is anyone really surprised that we have quasi-slipped into an era of the law being used to spread disorder?

A few years back, adherent supporters of Proposition 47 said it was too earlier to tell if it was responsible for a surge in thefts. But it wasn’t too soon to say it was a success at reducing felonies. It is true since voters bought into spotting criminals another $550 per crime.

Here’s a novel idea. Why not find a middle ground? Make it a felony to accumulatively steal more than $950 over the course of a 12-month period. That way there is less wiggle room.

It’s not the end all solution, but it’s a start. We shouldn’t go back to the way it was. But then again, we shouldn’t continue on the course we are now on.

Work to move the pendulum to middle ground. Moderation tends to work.

This column is the opinion of Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Courier or 209 Multimedia.