MANDATORY INJUSTICES

President Clinton And Gov. Pataki Establish The Right Context For Drug Law
Reform

In keeping with past holiday seasons, Gov. Pataki has granted clemency to
five New Yorkers who have served prison sentences that far exceeded the
gravity of the low-level drug crimes. At the same time, President Clinton
commuted the sentences of two women who also had served far too long behind
bars for having the misfortune of being drawn into the drug crimes of others.

The increasing number of such cases cries out for drug law reform at both
the state and national levels. It is too early to tell how the new Congress
will respond to the call. But, regrettably, it is not too early to tell how
state lawmakers will act. More likely than not, they will allow gridlock to
prevail.

But it shouldn't. New York's Rockefeller drug laws are the most Draconian
in the nation. They are also ineffective. Instead of discouraging drug
crime and sending kingpins to prison for lengthy terms -- as had been
envisioned by Gov. Rockefeller -- the opposite has occurred. Low-level
runners are the ones most likely to face the harsh punishment specified
under these laws. If and when dealers are arrested, they have the financial
means to hire top legal talent to avoid severe sentences.

Moreover, drug runners rarely turn on their dealer bosses for fear of their
lives, thereby further insulating them from prosecution.

The result is a growing prison population composed of minor drug offenders
who are serving time that is far disproportionate to their crimes. The four
women granted clemency by Mr. Pataki Dec. 22 were typical of that
population. All four had been convicted for possession, not sale, of drugs.
All had received sentences of 15 years to life. All were exemplary
prisoners who improved the lives of their fellow inmates.

To his credit, Mr. Pataki has long demonstrated a willingness to consider
drug law reform. So has state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno,
R-Brunswick. And the state's chief judge, Judith Kaye, has proposed reform,
although some critics have complained that it does not go far enough.

Even so, the consensus for reform is building. But the one obstacle remains
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, who inexplicably fears that
any reform would make Democrats appear soft on crime.

But no one is suggesting leniency for criminals. This is an issue framed by
the bedrock of jurisprudence -- namely, that the punishment should fit the
crime. The four women granted clemency were punished beyond their offenses,
and that is an offense to justice.

Similarly, the national movement to hold drug offenders liable under
mandatory minimum sentencing has not achieved its purpose. Advocates had
insisted that a uniform standard was needed to remove a patchwork system
under which some offenders would serve long terms while others would
receive light sentences. In theory, that was a laudable objective. But in
practice, it has rigidly limited a judge's discretion to consider the
circumstances of the crime, not just the offense itself. The women pardoned
deserved to be punished for their crimes, but mandatory minimum sentences
also held them accountable for falling in with the wrong crowd and being
the wrong place at the wrong time. There was no justice in that, only a
mockery of justice.