SENTENCING LAW REPEALED

PROVIDENCE -- For the second year in a row, state lawmakers have
approved a bill to wipe out the state's mandatory minimum sentences
for serious drug crimes, such as the sale of heroin, cocaine or
significant amounts of marijuana.

And for the second year in a row, Republican Governor Carcieri is
likely to veto it.

Since this "is essentially the same bill that went to the governor
last year, and he vetoed it, it is reasonable to believe it will
receive the same treatment this year," said Carcieri spokeswoman
Barbara Trainor in response to inquiries after the measure cleared its
final legislative hurdle yesterday.

Passed by the House on a 52-to-13 vote after clearing the Senate
earlier this session, the bill is one in a constellation of bills to
reduce sentences, let prisoners out early and "quash and destroy"
criminal records that are being pushed with notable success this year
by criminal defense lawyers, prisoner-rights advocates and the
minority community.

While there was little debate yesterday, there was this unusual
exchange between House Minority Whip Nicholas Gorham, R-Coventry, and
a heckler at the back of the House chamber.

After reading whole sections of Carcieri's veto message from last
year, Gorham asked House Judiciary Committee Chairman Donald Lally who
was for it and who was against it. In response, Lally said he believed
"the public defender was in favor of it ... and numerous other people."

"The public defender was in favor of it? Wow, what a surprise," said
Gorham laughing.

From the back of the cavernous House chamber came a loud -- "Ha Ha
Ha" -- from Rep. John Patrick Shanley, D-South Kingstown, which led
Gorham to say: "Laugh all you want. You're the one who's going to vote
for it so, you know, open the jail house doors a little wider."
(Explaining his actions later, Shanley said he believed Gorham's own
"ha-ha-ha" deserved a "ho-ho-ho," but moreover, as a former probation
officer, he believes judges should be able to make case-by-case
sentencing decisions.)

The law at issue was adopted at the height of the Reagan-era war on
drugs when Rhode Island, like other states, believed it was grappling
with a serious social problem. Prosecutors said "heroin is out of
control in Providence." State police labeled Rhode Island "a mecca for
drug salesmen." Lawmakers responded with tougher sentences for certain
drug crimes: a minimum of 10 years imprisonment for those convicted of
selling or planning to sell an ounce or more of heroin or cocaine.
Possessing larger quantities carried a mandatory minimum of 20 years.
Bail wasn't an option.

The law-enforcement community hailed the legislation as the muscle
that would take down drug kingpins and dismantle Rhode Island's drug
trade from the top down. But as the years wore on, Sen. Harold Metts,
D-Providence, among others, decided the state had "gone overboard out
of fear." Instead of drug lords, he concluded, it was the addicts and
low-level street dealers who found themselves facing long prison stays.

A group called the Marijuana Policy Project lobbied Rhode Island
lawmakers to repeal the minimum-sentence laws with this argument: "Can
you imagine spending the rest of your life in prison for possessing
marijuana -- a substance that has never been shown to cause an
overdose death? Some Rhode Islanders can. Possessing more than five
kilograms of a substance containing any amount of marijuana can result
in life in state prison."

The bill headed for the governor's desk was introduced in the Senate
by Metts. A matching bill introduced by Rep. Joseph Almeida,
D-Providence, is still winding its way through the General Assembly.

Both would repeal the mandatory sentences which can run from a minimum
of 10 years to life in prison in the most serious cases, restore
"judicial discretion," and limit prison stays to 30 years.

In his veto message last July, Carcieri said: "Whether intended or
not, the practical import of this legislation is that the General
Assembly is directing the judiciary to ease up on sentences for
serious drug offenses." He said judges already have the discretion to
deviate from the mandatory minimum if "substantial and compelling
circumstances exist which justify imposition of an alternative sentence."