HARD NEGOTIATIONS LOOM FOR ROCKEFELLER DRUG LAWS

ALBANY -- With politicians from both houses and the governor calling for
rewriting the state's tough Rockefeller-era drug laws, it would seem change
is in the air.

But a close look at the different proposals on the table show Republicans
and Democrats are far apart on the details of how to do it. Minimum
sentences, judges' discretion, prosecutors' power are just some of the
thorny issues.

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

Since their enactment, the laws have contributed to the growth in the
number of state prisoners. The prison population mushroomed from 12,500 in
1973 to 71,472 in 1999, but has now dropped off slightly. About 21,000
inmates are serving time for drug convictions. There were 20 state prisons
in 1973 compared to 71 currently.

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.

For years, legislators stymied repeal efforts, with some admitting they
were afraid of being labeled "soft on crime."

But momentum picked up a year ago when New York's Chief Judge Judith Kaye
called for reform after studying the clogged court system.

Then, this year Gov. George Pataki joined the chorus when he said the laws
were dated. "Today, we can conclude that -- however well intentioned -- key
aspects of those laws are out of step with both the times and the
complexitiesof drug addiction," Pataki said in his State-of-the-State
address in January.

But when the Republican governor put his idea of reform into writing, many
advocates called it disappointing. In contrast, a plan by the Democrat-led
Assembly suggests more significant changes.

Pataki's proposal maintains the possibility of life sentences for
first-time offenders convicted of the most serious crimes, called "Class A"
felonies. His bill merely reduces the sentence from 15-years-to-life to
10-years-to-life.

The Assembly plan limits first-time Class A felons to a maximum of 25
years. The Assembly would also double the weight threshold (the amount of
drugs sold or possessed) to trigger a Class A felony.

For less serious felonies, the Assembly plan would reduce minimum sentences
from 4 1/2 years to 2 1/2 years and gives judges more discretion in meting
out sentences. The governor's plan imposes strict sentencing guidelines
(known as "determinate" sentencing) and orders that offenders serve at
least six-sevenths of their sentence before coming up for parole.

Pataki also gives prosecutors a more prominent role in determining
drug-treatment options and conditions. With the exception of a few types of
crimes, judges must get prosecutors to consent to ordering a convict into a
treatment program rather than into prison, under the governor's plan. A
district attorney could also request that a person's probation be revoked
if he or she tests positive for drugs.

The Assembly would give judges latitude over placements in drug-treatment
programs.

Finally, the Pataki plan increases penalties for some marijuana crimes. For
example, someone convicted of four marijuana possession charges in five
years can be charged with a felony, facing three years in state prison.
Under current law, three convictions in three years requires only up to
15 days in a county jail.

While district attorneys have applauded Pataki's plan, reform advocates
say it could wind up putting more people in prison for drugs.

Prosecutors have too much power, low-level felons don't get an opportunity
for parole soon enough and sentencing guidelines are still too strict, they
say. More people could end up in prison for a longer time, they fear.

"What he characterized as a dramatic improvement turned out to be an awful
lot less and doesn't amount to reform," said John Dunne, a former state
senator who helped pass the Rockefeller drug laws but is now working to
overturn them.

In contrast, district attorneys say Rockefeller drug laws have been blamed
too often for the prison-population explosion. They say judges have
significant sentencing leeway over every type of offense, save Class A
felonies. And they say it's important for prosecutors to maintain a strong
role in determining what crimes a person is charged with and whether he or
she can go into drug treatment.

"If prosecutorial discretion is so bad in drug (cases), then why is it not
bad in armed robbery?" said Schenectady County District Attorney Robert
Carney, who heads the state DA association. "We don't want judges doing
some strange things, like giving probation for violent crimes ... It
angers me when I hear this argument that prosecutors have too much control."

If the public wants shorter sentences, then the Legislature should lower
minimum penalties, not take away prosecutors' power, he said. He added that
although some groups and politicians are clamoring for change, "you don't
hear it from neighborhoods affected by drug dealing."

So far, there haven't been any significant talks among politicians to make
a deal this year. Uncertainty over the state budget has put almost all over
matters on hold. Eventually, any drug-law bill may be tied to the budget
because it could affect how much the state spends is spent on prisons and
drug treatment.

The conventional wisdom at the State Capitol is that a deal would be easier
to make this year than next, when the governor and all 211 legislators are
up for re-election.