PROPOSAL WOULD REDUCE HARSHEST DRUG LAW PENALTIES

Activists Call Tentative Deal 'Half A Step' In Right Direction

ALBANY -- Lawmakers landed a deal Tuesday to change a portion of New
York's Rockefeller-era drug laws, a change activists called "half a
step in the right direction."

Some of the harshest sentences under New York's Rockefeller-era drug
laws could be reduced. The current 15-years-to-life maximum sentence
could be reduced to an eight-to-20-year sentence. The weight
thresholds for what constitutes the top (A-1) felony would be doubled
from, say, possession of 4 ounces of cocaine to 8. Nonviolent
offenders would be eligible for treatment programs sooner.

However, the agreement didn't include long-sought goals of reformers:
giving sentencing discretion to judges, reducing sentences of
mid-level felonies and allowing some offenders to avoid jail
altogether in favor of treatment programs.

The breakthrough on drug sentences could mean that the roughly 400
inmates serving the longest sentences (typically 15 years to life)
could ask the courts to reduce their time. Time off for good behavior
or "merit time" could double for the type-A felonies. Also, a sentence
of three years to life could become a three-year sentence.

But the type-B felonies, which account for the bulk of the 18,000 or
so inmates serving time for drug crimes, wouldn't be addressed.

"This is only half a step to real reform," said Michael Blain,
director of public policy for the Drug Policy Alliance, an advocacy
group. He said "real reform" would include judicial discretion on
sentencing, as well as more treatment options and sentencing
retroactivity. However, he praised the reductions announced Tuesday
for the most serious crimes.

Other activists had a cooler reaction. "The mandatory sentencing is
still in place. Although they have been reduced, the sentences are
still unduly long," Randy Credico of the Mothers of the Disappeared
and Andrew Cuomo and Bob Gangi of the Drop the Rock coalition said in
a joint statement.

The Democrat-led Assembly and the Republican-controlled Senate each
overwhelmingly approved the measure.

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 grant judges little discretion on sentencing people convicted of
certain felonies. 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.

Lawmakers have been engaged in reform negotiations off-and-on for
about four years.

Gov. George E. Pataki, who said he'd sign the bill, said the
willingness to change drug sentencing "reflects a greater knowledge
than we had 30 years ago."

Others also hailed the agreement.

"This bill achieves the goal to reform the state's outdated
Rockefeller Drug Laws by addressing first-time, nonviolent drug
offenders who have received unfairly lengthy prison sentences under
the old law," said Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick,
Rensselaer County. He said he agreed that the measure didn't go far
enough but that it would "help thousands of people."

The Democratic point man on the issue, Assemblyman Jeffrion Aubry, had
long championed an overhaul of the laws. But he called Tuesday's deal
"progress."

One of the harshest critics of the laws, Sen. Tom Duane, D-Manhattan,
said the measure was so minor in scope "that we should be ashamed of
ourselves."

The highlights

Some of the prospective changes and omissions in New York's drug
sentencing laws with the tentative deal:

* The current 15-years-to-life maximum sentence could be reduced to an
8-to-20-year sentence.

* The weight thresholds for what constitutes the top (A-1) felony
would be doubled from, say, possession of 4 ounces of cocaine to 8.

* Nonviolent offenders would be eligible for treatment programs
sooner. Time off for good behavior or "merit time" could double for
the type-A felonies.

* Type-B felonies, which account for the bulk of the 18,000 or so
inmates serving time for drug crimes, wouldn't be addressed.

* Judges wouldn't be given total discretion over sentencing.