Pubdate: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 Source: Ithaca Journal, The (NY) Copyright: 2001, The Ithaca Journal Address: 123-127 W. State St., Ithaca, NY 14850 Feedback: http://www.theithacajournal.com/news/letters.html Website: http://www.theithacajournal.com/ Forum: http://www.theithacajournal.com/customerservice/contactus.html Author: Yancey Roy, Gannett News Service Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?140 (Rockefeller Drug Laws) HARD NEGOTIATIONS LOOM FOR ROCKEFELLER DRUG LAWS ALBANY -- With politicians from both houses and the governor calling for rewriting the state's tough Rockefeller-era drug laws, it would seem change is in the air. But a close look at the different proposals on the table show Republicans and Democrats are far apart on the details of how to do it. Minimum sentences, judges' discretion, prosecutors' power are just some of the thorny issues. Enacted under Gov. Nelson Rockefeller in 1973, New York's drug laws are considered among the nation's harshest. Offenders can receive life terms for possessing or selling even small amounts of narcotics. The laws granted judges little discretion on sentencing people convicted of certain felonies. Since their enactment, the laws have contributed to the growth in the number of state prisoners. The prison population mushroomed from 12,500 in 1973 to 71,472 in 1999, but has now dropped off slightly. About 21,000 inmates are serving time for drug convictions. There were 20 state prisons in 1973 compared to 71 currently. Opponents of the laws say the measures haven't curbed drug use and have disproportionately affected minorities, who account for the bulk of drug convicts. For years, legislators stymied repeal efforts, with some admitting they were afraid of being labeled "soft on crime." But momentum picked up a year ago when New York's Chief Judge Judith Kaye called for reform after studying the clogged court system. Then, this year Gov. George Pataki joined the chorus when he said the laws were dated. "Today, we can conclude that -- however well intentioned -- key aspects of those laws are out of step with both the times and the complexitiesof drug addiction," Pataki said in his State-of-the-State address in January. But when the Republican governor put his idea of reform into writing, many advocates called it disappointing. In contrast, a plan by the Democrat-led Assembly suggests more significant changes. Pataki's proposal maintains the possibility of life sentences for first-time offenders convicted of the most serious crimes, called "Class A" felonies. His bill merely reduces the sentence from 15-years-to-life to 10-years-to-life. The Assembly plan limits first-time Class A felons to a maximum of 25 years. The Assembly would also double the weight threshold (the amount of drugs sold or possessed) to trigger a Class A felony. For less serious felonies, the Assembly plan would reduce minimum sentences from 4 1/2 years to 2 1/2 years and gives judges more discretion in meting out sentences. The governor's plan imposes strict sentencing guidelines (known as "determinate" sentencing) and orders that offenders serve at least six-sevenths of their sentence before coming up for parole. Pataki also gives prosecutors a more prominent role in determining drug-treatment options and conditions. With the exception of a few types of crimes, judges must get prosecutors to consent to ordering a convict into a treatment program rather than into prison, under the governor's plan. A district attorney could also request that a person's probation be revoked if he or she tests positive for drugs. The Assembly would give judges latitude over placements in drug-treatment programs. Finally, the Pataki plan increases penalties for some marijuana crimes. For example, someone convicted of four marijuana possession charges in five years can be charged with a felony, facing three years in state prison. Under current law, three convictions in three years requires only up to 15 days in a county jail. While district attorneys have applauded Pataki's plan, reform advocates say it could wind up putting more people in prison for drugs. Prosecutors have too much power, low-level felons don't get an opportunity for parole soon enough and sentencing guidelines are still too strict, they say. More people could end up in prison for a longer time, they fear. "What he characterized as a dramatic improvement turned out to be an awful lot less and doesn't amount to reform," said John Dunne, a former state senator who helped pass the Rockefeller drug laws but is now working to overturn them. In contrast, district attorneys say Rockefeller drug laws have been blamed too often for the prison-population explosion. They say judges have significant sentencing leeway over every type of offense, save Class A felonies. And they say it's important for prosecutors to maintain a strong role in determining what crimes a person is charged with and whether he or she can go into drug treatment. "If prosecutorial discretion is so bad in drug (cases), then why is it not bad in armed robbery?" said Schenectady County District Attorney Robert Carney, who heads the state DA association. "We don't want judges doing some strange things, like giving probation for violent crimes ... It angers me when I hear this argument that prosecutors have too much control." If the public wants shorter sentences, then the Legislature should lower minimum penalties, not take away prosecutors' power, he said. He added that although some groups and politicians are clamoring for change, "you don't hear it from neighborhoods affected by drug dealing." So far, there haven't been any significant talks among politicians to make a deal this year. Uncertainty over the state budget has put almost all over matters on hold. Eventually, any drug-law bill may be tied to the budget because it could affect how much the state spends is spent on prisons and drug treatment. The conventional wisdom at the State Capitol is that a deal would be easier to make this year than next, when the governor and all 211 legislators are up for re-election. - --- MAP posted-by: GD