Pubdate: Thu, 14 Jun 2001
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2001 The New York Times Company
Contact:  http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Author: Somini Sengupta

EFFORT TO EASE DRUG LAWS STALLS IN ALBANY

Efforts to reach a deal to relax New York's drug sentencing laws have 
stalled, leaving some proponents worried that no revisions will be made 
this summer.

In January, Gov. George E. Pataki, a Republican, threw his weight behind 
the idea of easing the laws, which mandate long prison sentences for drug 
felons, including many low-level street dealers and addicts. The Assembly 
speaker, Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, soon did the same. And advocates on 
both sides of the issue predicted that a consensus would be reached during 
the 2001 legislative session.

But no substantive discussions have begun among the governor and the two 
men who control the State Legislature. Not even closed-door negotiations -- 
where legislative compromises are usually reached -- have gotten under way, 
according to aides to the lawmakers, as well as state officials and 
advocates who have a stake in the legislation.

All sides blame the state budget impasse -- and the resulting tensions in 
Albany these days -- for the lack of talks on drug laws.

Differences between Republicans and Democrats on the drug laws are extreme. 
Chief among them is what to do about the biggest chunk of serious drug 
felons in the system. Last year, these so-called Class B felons made up 
more than 28 percent of all those imprisoned on drug felonies.

The Assembly proposal would hand judges the discretion to decide whether to 
send these felons to prison or to treatment. The governor's proposal would 
require judges to get the prosecutors' permission. Under the current 
mandatory sentencing system, judges have virtually no authority over 
sentencing; they are bound by the weight of the drugs seized and the 
defendant's felony record. Only prosecutors can decide who can be sent to 
treatment instead of prison.

With barely a week left until the official close of the legislative 
session, neither side is ready to sound the death knell on drug law changes.

Still, among those who have spent years agitating for change, the optimism 
of early spring has dimmed.

"There's no forward motion," said John R. Dunne, who served in the State 
Senate as a Republican and now lobbies to loosen the mandatory sentencing 
laws. "Staking out a position is one thing. Following up and acting on it 
is what's needed for real leadership."

Mr. Dunne places that onus on the Democratic leadership of the Assembly. 
"It needs more than a nudge," he said. "It needs a very strong 
demonstration of real support."

For their part, the Assembly Democrats, whose 80-page bill was introduced 
just three weeks ago and has yet to come to the floor for a vote, remain 
upbeat.

On a measure as highly charged as this, they say, negotiations cannot begin 
until meaningful budget talks are under way, and budget talks at the moment 
are at a standstill.

"There are a number of pieces of legislation that must be done," Mr. Silver 
said in an interview yesterday, rattling off other unresolved measures, 
from energy to campaign finance reform. "I am as optimistic we will achieve 
something."

This is the first year that Mr. Silver, a Manhattan Democrat straddling the 
demands of his largely white Democratic colleagues from upstate and his 
black and Latino colleagues from New York City, has endorsed amending the 
laws. And he did so after the governor promised change.

"Why would someone expect this would be resolved fast?" asked Jeffrion L. 
Aubry, a Queens assemblyman and an early crusader for changing the 
Rockefeller-era drug laws. "All the players are out. They have positions. 
They're public on where they stand. In the history of Rockefeller, that's 
been the biggest part of the battle. That's how you begin negotiations."

Assembly Democrats predicted that discussions would begin soon between key 
aides to Mr. Silver, Mr. Pataki and the Senate majority leader, Joseph L. 
Bruno, a Republican. A spokesman said that Mr. Bruno remained concerned 
about tinkering with the sentencing rules but favored allocating more money 
for drug treatment.

A spokesman for the governor, Michael McKeon, said yesterday that 
administration officials were open to negotiations, though not to some of 
the Assembly provisions. "We do have some concerns, significant concerns, 
with the bill, particularly its failure to provide a meaningful voice to 
district attorneys on diversion decisions," Mr. McKeon said. "Nevertheless, 
we remain willing and interested in working together in good faith. We're 
always hopeful."

A report released last week by the Legal Action Center, an advocacy group 
that favors loosening the drug laws, pointed to the stark contrast between 
the Republican and Democratic bills.

Judges would have sole authority to send 14 times as many drug felons to 
treatment under the Assembly bill as they would under the governor's, the 
report concluded. However, as the governor's aides pointed out, the report 
did not count in its figures those who could be diverted with the 
prosecutors' consent.

The other vital issue is money. The Assembly proposal includes $55 million 
for treatment slots in prison. The governor's proposal allocates no 
treatment dollars, figuring that treatment slots would be paid for through 
savings in the prison budget. A Senate proposal allocates $30 million for 
treatment slots controlled by prosecutors.

There are other differences. The Assembly proposes much lower sentences on 
each class of felony, for instance, while the governor's bill piles on 
stiff new penalties for marijuana sales -- but there is likely to be far 
greater flexibility on these issues.

In any event, people on all sides of the drug war divide wondered aloud how 
and when any discussion of the differences might start.

"Everyone is so far apart in terms of their approach to the problem, it's 
going to take a great deal of effort to bring the parties together," said 
Richard A. Brown, the Queens district attorney. Prosecutors across the 
state are the most powerful backers of the present drug laws. Very few 
low-level dealers and addicts are sentenced to long prison terms, they 
contend, and many of those have past felonies. The prosecutors say they are 
best equipped to decide who should go into treatment, and they have spent 
the last several months cautioning lawmakers against making drastic changes.

"Do I think it's dead?" Mr. Brown mused aloud. "I don't see any real level 
of communication at the present time."

One criminal justice official who spoke on the condition of anonymity, for 
fear of influencing the direction of future talks, said that while he was 
fairly confident a couple of months ago that the drug laws would be amended 
this year, his confidence waned in the last few weeks. "I don't believe 
this is being seriously discussed," he said. "I don't see it going 
anywhere. It needs a spark."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth