Pubdate: Sun, 25 Mar 2001
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2001 The New York Times Company
Contact:  229 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036
Fax: (212) 556-3622
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Forum: http://forums.nytimes.com/comment/
Authors: Richard A. Brown, Charles J. Hynes
Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n480/a08.html
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?140 (Rockefeller Drug Laws)

DRUG LAW REFORM: THE D.A.'S SPEAK

To the Editor:

Prosecutors oppose the wholesale dismantling of our current drug laws
based, among other reasons, on historical experience ("Drug-Sentencing
Battle in Albany," editorial, March 19). In the 1960's and 70's, New
York experimented both with diversion of drug offenders to treatment
on a large scale and with discretionary sentences. The treatment
experiment failed because of inconsistent screening of offenders, poor
retention, the absence of effective sanctions and inefficient after
care.

Judges, frustrated by seeing the same offenders again and again, were
among the first to call for mandatory sentences. Without the leverage
of such sentences, judges were unable to sanction repeat offenders
effectively. Moreover, wide disparities occurred in sentencing between
similarly situated defendants.

We should approach changing our drug laws with caution and not embrace
simplistic solutions that jeopardize the dramatic progress that has
been made in reducing violent crime in our city.

RICHARD A. BROWN

Queens District Attorney

Kew Gardens, Queens, March 20, 2001

To the Editor:

Your March 19 editorial omits an important issue relating to reform of
the Rockefeller drug laws. The laws play a significant role in
diverting drug offenders into treatment.

The "threat" of the laws (a minimum sentence of two to four years) and
the second felony offender law often persuade chronic drug offenders
to choose treatment over jail time. This "choice" represents more than
$18 million in reduced costs of incarceration, health care, welfare
and recidivism in Brooklyn alone.

Reform of the laws should not grant the judiciary unfettered
discretionary sentencing without granting prosecutors the right to
appeal. In some cases, disagreements between justices and prosecutors
as to a defendant's motive (addict versus profiteer) have emerged.
Allowing prosecutors to appeal a sentence would permit the appellate
court to decide if sentencing was impartial and reasonable.

CHARLES J. HYNES

District Attorney, Kings County

Brooklyn, March 19, 2001
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake