REFORM IN NAME ONLY

The State's District Attorneys Outline A Weak Plan To Soften The
Rockefeller Drug Laws

New York state's district attorneys have proven a formidable foe to
reforming the harsh Rockefeller Drug Laws -- statutes that they routinely
use as leverage to win plea bargains and drive up their record of
convictions. But now, with the momentum for reform building in recent
years, the state District Attorneys Association has outlined its own plan
for change.

But the shift in position turns out to be little more than an empty
gesture. The prosecutors' proposal falls far short of genuine reform, which
must remain the ultimate goal of state lawmakers. So far, the district
attorneys are proposing only minimal steps, such as reducing potential life
sentences of some drug offenders and increasing funds for treatment
programs for nonviolent addicts.

Yet the prosecutors show their true colors when they warn lawmakers against
adopting the reform plan passed by the Assembly by claiming it would favor
"predatory drug dealers over public safety." Moreover, the group's
president, John Tunney, the Steuben County district attorney, insists the
existing laws already give judges wide discretion to send eligible
offenders to treatment programs rather than prison.

The facts are otherwise. The Rockefeller Drug Laws are unjust precisely
because they tie the hands of judges by requiring them to impose mandatory
sentences of 15 years to life, regardless of the circumstances surrounding
the crimes.

Gov. Pataki should have no trouble seeing through Mr. Tunney's misleading
claim. In the last several years, the governor has granted clemency to some
of those sentenced to long terms under the Rockefeller Drug Laws. The cases
have involved first-time nonviolent offenders, and low-level "mules" who
were used as couriers by drug kingpins. More than anything, the annual
clemency messages are strong testaments to the need for sweeping reform of
the 1973 drug laws.

While previous reform efforts have failed, the prospects are brighter this
year now that the Assembly has moved closer to Mr. Pataki's reform plan,
which has been passed in the Senate. Even so, neither plan provides for the
kind of judicial discretion necessary to ensure that the rigid sentencing
guidelines of the past will become history. That has to be achieved by
enhancing the number of cases that would be subject to some form of
judicial discretion. Otherwise, the laws would remain largely intact.

And that seems to be what the district attorneys favor. It's time to tell
them no.