DRUG REFORM IS OVERDUE

State Lawmakers Still Have Time To Act On The Harsh Rockefeller
Laws

Nearly a year ago, the signs were all positive for reforming New
York's Rockefeller drug laws, the harshest in the nation.

The momentum for change began to build when Governor Pataki introduced
a modest reform measure that would have opened the way for review of
some of the 15-years-to-life sentences imposed on first-time offenders
convicted of possessing four ounces, or selling two, of a controlled
substance.

Within weeks of Mr. Pataki's initiative, the nation's drug czar, Gen.
Barry McCaffrey, told an Albany audience that the Rockefeller drug
laws had "caused tens of thousands of low-level and first-time
offenders to be incarcerated at high cost for long sentences that are
disproportionate to their crimes.'' And a few weeks later, Senate
Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, called for judges to have
more discretion in meting out drug sentences -- a key element in any
reform.

But in a surprise move, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan,
who had been expected to support reform, instead refused to join the
issue out of fear that, despite the Republicans' position, it might
make Democrats appear to be soft on crime.

That was enough to dash all hopes for progress.

But now, a year later, lawmakers have a second chance to do the right
thing.

Time is running out before they leave for the summer, but there are
still a few days in which to act on Rockefeller drug law reform.

They should.

The Rockefeller drug laws have had more than a quarter of a century to
prove themselves as strong deterrents to drug crime.

They have not. To the con@@hyphen@@trary, they have proved woefully
ineffective at snaring the drug kingpins they were supposed to have
put out of business. At the same time, they have fallen heaviest on
low-level offenders who do not deserve the draconian punishments that
judges are required by law to impose on them.

Not surprisingly, the reform effort is wrapped in a maze of confusing
statistics. Opponents of reform note that Mr. Pataki's plan would
address only 300 inmates, out of a total state prison population of
70,000.

But the figures have been cited out of context.

Of the 70,000 inmates in the system, some 22,000 are serving time for
drug offenses, including many who had plea bargained to escape the
harsher penalties mandated under the Rockefeller drug laws. And, as
General McCaffrey noted, while there is anecdotal evidence that
thousands of first-time offenders have been diverted to treatment
programs by humane judges, "the number is far too small relative to
the overall number of drug-offense arrestees.'' Finally, a recent
study by John DiIulio, professor at Princeton University, found that
one quarter of all recent new inmates in New York state prisons were
convicted of low-level, nonviolent drug offenses.

Regrettably, Mr. Pataki has linked his reforms to eliminating parole
for all offenders, and Democrats are right to resist such a rigid quid
pro quo. But that should not be an insurmountable obstacle to
compromise. As for Mr. Silver's fears that reform might make it appear
that Democrats are soft on crime, that same fear, ironically, prompted
Gover@@hyphen@@nor Rockefeller to push these statutes through the
Legislature more than a quarter century ago. But as the record shows,
these laws have had little impact on crime. They have, however,
created an injustice within the state's justice system -- one that
should not be allowed to continue.