The race for city attorney has stirred a dispute over the existence of a stolen can of tuna, of all things. The subject came up again last week at a debate in West Seattle, where challenger Pete Holmes charged that incumbent Tom Carr was pushing harsh penalties for the tuna theft.

Carr insisted the tuna case was a "myth."

Holmes fired the first shot, arguing, "You cannot say you are trying to reduce the need for a jail when you instruct your prosecutors to seek a nine-month jail sentence for a homeless man who stole a can of tuna. And these are all records, these are all facts, these all happened under the last eight years of Mr. Carr."

"I, frankly folks, am absolutely flabbergasted," Carr replied. "I mean, I’ve been in politics for a long time, and I have never heard so many misstatements, half-truths and lies than I just heard from my opponent."

"The tuna fish case. That is an urban myth," Carr continued. "I have tried to track down that case for years. ... People state that—I don't know where it comes from. I've never seen a docket number, and, you know, the fact is, in a progressive criminal justice system, you could theoretically be asking for jail time for something like that if the person had a long record and there was a reason for it. But we hear this all the time, and I don't know where it is."

In fact, Carr had tracked down the case. In an April 2004 memo to City Council Member Nick Licata, Carr responded to questions about reducing the jail population. On page five, Carr writes, "In 2003, the City Attorney recommended a nine-month sentence for a defendant who 'opted out' of Mental Health Court whose crime was the theft of a $1.50 can of tuna fish, based on criminal history; if imposed, with good time off, the cost of incarceration would have neared $16,000."

Carr explains that the defendant failed to participate in mental health court, and, as a result, his "sentencing recommendations reverted to that which would have been given to anyone charged with the theft who also has a substantial criminal history."

Indeed, the defendant did have a criminal history, but it still underscored Holmes's criticism: Carr was pushing an extreme sentence—one that keeps jails full—on someone who committed a very, very low-level crime. The defendant was crazy enough to qualify for mental health court and hungry enough to pilfer tuna. Carr said in the debate last week, talking about the tuna case and pot possession cases, that he "want[s] the jail beds for people who are dangerous, which is why I’m working to figure a way to get this problem solved, and why I’d like to keep doing that."

Carr now appears to have remembered the case. On his campaign blog, he defends himself, explaining that the man had 50 convictions. Writes Carr, "[T]he cost borne by taxpayers for repeat offenders is enormous. At times, it is more effective to put people in jail. This was one of those times."

But does the tuna thief qualify as one of those "people who are dangerous" who requires a jail bed, as Carr put it? The defendant couldn't have been too dangerous. Seattle Municipal Court judge Theresa Doyle disagreed with Carr, imposing almost no sanction, letting the man free with only time served: a month in jail.