ROCKEFELLER DRUG LAWS DON'T NEED CHANGING

There's increasing pressure in Albany this year to amend the so-called
Rockefeller drug laws. Lost in the flood of headlines is the fact that the
laws already have undergone significant changes and that further revisions,
in the view of New York's most experienced prosecutors, may be a step in
the wrong direction.

In 1979, the Legislature amended the Rockefeller laws to provide a more
rational sentencing structure. The changes gave judges greater flexibility
to deal leniently with first offenders involved in small-scale drug
transactions while providing harsher treatment for repeat offenders and
large-scale dealers.

In the years since then, Govs. Hugh Carey, Mario Cuomo and George Pataki
have wisely exercised their clemency power to provide early release for
offenders who have proven that they are ready to rejoin society.

It is fair to say, therefore, that the drug laws as now written give law
enforcement professionals the tools they need to fight the drug trade while
providing a powerful incentive for getting addicted criminals into
treatment — without the many cases of harsh oversentencing of the original
Rockefeller laws. We should think long and hard before we tinker with such
an effective system.

Vigorous enforcement of the drug laws has played a major role in the
dramatic reduction of crime — particularly violent crime — in our city.
Drug dealing is big business, and drug dealers use violence to protect
their turf, intimidate witnesses, rob one another and punish those who
threaten their livelihood. Having come so far, it would be a serious
mistake to take away from law enforcement the tools that have let us make
our streets safe again.

We pay an enormous price from the proliferation of drugs — health care,
foster care and social services costs — as well as the incredible
devastation on the human level. We should not forget what our streets were
like only a few short years ago — open-air drug markets, drive-by
shootings, children caught in the crossfire of dealers' feuds. These things
haven't stopped by accident, but because dealers and drug gang members were
put in prison.

Those who seek so-called reform would have us believe the prisons are
filled with small-time drug offenders who are locked up for 15 years or
more. That is not the case. Of the 70,000 offenders in state prison today,
600 are drug offenders serving sentences of more than 15 years — and with
very few exceptions, they are in prison because they belong there.

The fact is, most drug offenders are locked up not because they possessed
small amounts of drugs and were swept up by the Rockefeller laws, but
because they repeatedly sold drugs to make money, possessed large
quantities of drugs intended for sale or had prior convictions for violent
felonies.

Sixty-seven percent of drug felons in state prison today are second-felony
offenders; 86% were convicted not merely for possession of drugs, but for
sale or intent to sell.

In cases where drug offenders' crimes are genuinely tied to a substance
abuse problem, prosecutors divert them into treatment under the successful
Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison and Drug Court programs.

One of the main reasons those programs are so successful is that addicted
offenders face mandatory prison time if they don't stay in treatment. Most
felony drug offenders get probation for their first offense. They could
volunteer to go into treatment then and there — but they don't. Graduates
of the programs tell us it is only the credible threat of prison time that
motivates them to enter — and stay in — treatment.

To the extent that Pataki and others are willing to let courts review
through the appellate process the rare cases in which first-time offenders
are serving mandatory sentences of more than 15 years, prosecutors are
generally supportive.

But to go beyond that — to dismantle drug- and second-felony-offender laws
that have helped lower the level of violence in our society — would be a
mistake.