DRUG-LAW REFORM

...Mustn't Be Stalled By Prosecutors. Rockefeller Rules Distort Justice And
Should Be Repealed.

It is no surprise that the group most opposed to changes in the
Rockefeller drug laws are prosecutors. Reform would curtail their power,
and no one relinquishes power gladly.

Because the drug laws include mandatory prison sentences for drug
possession or sale, prosecutors largely dictate who will go to prison when
they decide what charges to file. That kind of power in the hands of
prosecutors distorts the legal system, which is designed to pit prosecutor
against defense lawyer, with the judge as the impartial arbiter of justice.

Judges should sentence offenders. It is not the job of prosecutors.
Shifting some of that discretion back where it belongs is one of many good
reasons to scrap the rigid laws enacted in the sunset days of Gov. Nelson
Rockefeller, who yearned to be president and pushed the laws to prove he
was tough on crime.

The association that represents the state's 62 district attorneys has
voiced little opposition to many of the reforms proposed recently by
Gov. George Pataki. The prosecutors like the provisions that would toughen
sanctions for drug kingpins, drug offenders who possess firearms, and those
who use minors or the Internet in their drug enterprises. And authorizing
appellate courts to review the 15-year- to-life mandatory sentences for the
sale of two ounces of cocaine or heroin, or possession of four ounces,
would affect only a handful of cases.

It is the proposal to give judges discretion to order drug treatment for
some people convicted of lower-level, nonviolent drug crimes that has
prosecutors up in arms. Right now, those offenders go to prison unless
prosecutors cut them a break, and judges have nothing to say about it. In
effect, the offenders are sentenced by the prosecutors, who use the threat
of mandatory prison time to strengthen their hand in extracting plea
bargains. And, prosecutors say, it is the threat of prison that keeps
addicts in treatment when they are lucky enough to land there.

That wouldn't change if the power to imprison was shifted to judges.
Defendants would still have the credible threat of prison hanging over
their heads.

What would change is that prosecutors would prosecute and judges would
judge. Those are, after all, the jobs each is paid to do.