ROCKEFELLER DRUG LAW REFORM FIZZLES

ALBANY -- After big talk for years about significant revisions in the
state's Rockefeller-era drug laws, efforts fizzled last week. The Senate
made a last-minute proposal, endorsed by Gov. George E. Pataki, to reduce
sentences for a relatively small number of people, but the Assembly
rejected that idea.

The laws, passed in 1973, mandate harsh sentences for selling as little as
two ounces of an illegal drug like marijuana, cocaine or heroin, or
possessing as little as four ounces.

Those who want the law changed say it catches those who may have just been
transporting drugs and have had no other violations and puts them behind
bars for decades, if not the rest of their lives. And they say it jams
state prisons with people who would be better off getting treatment.

Opponents of reform, including most of the state's district attorneys, say
that relatively few of the 7,000 people sent to prison annually on drug
charges fit that category. Most are dealers or habitual users who aren't
motivated to benefit from a treatment program.

Talks for the last several months have centered around sentencing
reductions for all non-violent drug offenders, giving judges more
discretion to put violators in drug-treatment programs instead of prison,
freeing some of those now in prison and expanding drug-treatment programs.

Last week the Senate adopted a plan that would reduce sentences of those
sentenced for the most serious crime -- A-1 felonies, or about one-half of
1 percent of those sentenced annually.

The Assembly wouldn't do it, fearing that if this measure was passed
pressure for broader reforms would wane.

"At the beginning of the year, the governor promised to provide real reform
of the Rockefeller drug law, but instead he offered a half of a percent
solution," said Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan.

If it does eventually pass, it would give Pataki the political victory of
doing something to mitigate the harshest effects of the law while not
angering district attorneys by reducing their discretion on what to do with
those convicted of drug offenses.

Opponents of the idea see it as a ploy to give Pataki an accomplishment
that will help him in his re-election fight but leave little changed a
policy that hurts thousands of people.

The biggest problems, those opponents say, is that it doesn't change the
requirement that the crimes are measured by the weight of the drugs
involved, rather than the role of the person arrested. In other words, they
don't think "mules" who are merely transporting the drug, maybe
unknowingly, should be treated as harshly as someone selling them.

Anthony Papa of Queens was such a "mule" in 1984. He took $500 to take an
envelope with four ounces of cocaine from the Bronx to Mt. Vernon. He was
arrested there (he said the drug deal was part of a police sting operation)
and sentenced to 15 years to life. Pataki granted him clemency in 1997.

"I knew what I was getting into, what I did was wrong, but I didn't deserve
to serve 15 years to life," he said. Papa was part of a group of 15 people
who either served time in prison for drug offenses or who have relatives
serving time who met with Pataki and Silver last week.

"People make mistakes in their lives, but it doesn't mean they should spend
the rest of their lives in jail," he said.

The Assembly also wants to give judges more discretion by removing or
reducing the mandatory sentences.

Pataki, who has been courting minority voters, wants to deliver some
reform, since nine out of 10 of those behind bars on drug raps in New York
are African Americans or Latinos.

Since he faces a challenge for the Conservative and Independence Party
nominations from billionaire B. Thomas Golisano, he doesn't want to anger
the state district attorneys and face a charge of being "soft on crime."

So just reducing sentences for the most serious felons would seem like an
ideal solution.

Assembly Democrats, where the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus is a
significant force, won't settle for what they consider to be a half-measure.

Meanwhile, judges are still required to hand down long sentences for some
first-time, non-violent drug offenders -- something nobody can brag about
going into the November elections.