WHY DENTES IS WRONG ABOUT 'ROCKEFELLER'

This month marks the beginning of the 30th year that the people of New York
have suffered the harsh effects of the costly, ineffective and inhumane
Rockefeller Drug Laws.

In recent years, the movement calling for reform of these laws has been
steadily gaining momentum. Religious organizations, such as the New York
State Catholic Conference, the New York State Community of Churches and the
Board of Rabbis, have joined with many legal groups, including the New York
State Bar Association, in calling for modification of these laws. Former
proponents of the drug laws, now acknowledge their abject failure and
advocate reform. Even Gov. Pataki now admits the need for change.

In his guest column of April 11, Tompkins County District Attorney George
Dentes flippantly dismisses as "nonsense" several of the major criticisms
that reformers aim at the Rockefeller Drug Laws.

Regarding racial discrimination, Mr. Dentes states that "the reason we have
so many minority males in prison is that so many minority males are selling
drugs." Since, as a subsequent column by Sean Eversley-Bradwell points out,
the majority of those who use and sell drugs are white, Mr. Dentes'
analysis clearly doesn't hold up.

Our district attorney goes on to assert that young minority males commit
"the most readily prosecutable form of drug selling." So, although the
majority of those who use and sell drugs are white, it is easier to arrest,
prosecute and penalize African-Americans and Latinos. (That is why they
make up 94 percent of the drug offenders incarcerated in New York.) There
is a stark racial discrepancy between those who use and sell drugs, but
avoid arrest and incarceration. Does Mr. Dentes consider this to be "justice"?

Equally disturbing are the comments Mr. Dentes made regarding the
"nonsense" of mothers who are unjustly incarcerated under the Rockefeller
Drug Laws. In the past decade, New York has seen a fivefold increase in the
number of women behind bars and the majority of them are there due to
nonviolent drug offenses. Seventy-five percent of them are mothers and the
primary caretaker for two or more children. Because the penalties carried
with the laws are "one size fits all," no regard can be given to the unique
circumstances of each offense. Therefore, the subordinate roles that women
often take on in these crimes and the abusive environment that compels many
women to play these roles are removed from the court's consideration.

The story of Kimberly LaSelva is a case in point. Kim is a young mother who
was at risk of receiving a 15-year to life prison sentence under the
Rockefeller Drug Laws, when her boyfriend's drugs were found in her
apartment. She made the courageous decision to go public with her story in
the hopes of changing the drug laws and educating other women about their
dangers. In so doing, she incurred the ire of our district attorney.

Mr. Dentes makes much of the fact that Kim was arrested in a tavern across
the street from her home, but fails to mention that she had gone there to
place an important phone call because her own phone had been disconnected.
While Mr. Dentes also neglects to add that Kim, who was eight months
pregnant at the time, had recently sought help from the Task Force for
Battered Women and had good reason to be concerned about her own safety and
that of the child she was carrying. As the historian Howard Zinn warns us,
"More dangerous than lies told, are truths withheld."

That which Mr. Dentes refers to as the "nonsense" of inadequate judicial
discretion in the drug laws, is precisely what compelled Kim to accept a
plea bargain guaranteeing her a lesser sentence than she would have
received if she had gone to trial and lost. Because of the insanity of
"Rockefeller," she knew she was caught in a no-win situation. The fact that
she was a pregnant mother with no prior criminal record, and had
documentation of domestic violence, could not be considered in court.

If Kim had risked taking her case to trial, under these circumstances, and
she was found guilty, the judge would have had no choice but to give her
the mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years to life imprisonment -- 15 years
away from her newborn infant and 16 month old son. It is this appalling
lack of judicial discretion that forced her to plead guilty to a lesser
charge. Would any parent have made any other choice?

The "nonsense" of racial discrimination, unjustly incarcerated mothers and
inadequate judicial discretion, discounted by our district attorney, has
had a devastating impact upon thousands of individuals and families without
solving any of the drug and crime problems this law promised to solve more
than three decades ago. Judicial discretion, funding for drug treatment,
and healing are needed now. The time is now to "Drop the Rock"! For
information on how you can help, contact Catholic Charities at 272-5062 or
visit www.droptherock.org.

To hear Kim LaSelva tell her story, watch "NYS Prisons: Inside and Out" on
channel 78, May 29 at 7 p.m. and May 30 at 10 p.m., and on channel 13, May
31 at 6 p.m.