TRADE THE ROCKY LAWS

If you listen closely, you can hear the annual drumroll for the repeal of
the (insert mandatory adjective) "draconian" Rockefeller-era drug laws.

The usual suspects, as usual, are quoting overwrought judges who claim that
their "hands are tied" by the law - and that's why they must sentence
first-time, "non-violent offenders" to "outrageously inappropriate" jail
time.

Truth be told, the only thing wrong with New York state's sentencing,
parole, probation and bail statutes is that they are responsible for too
many criminals being set loose on the city streets.

If you doubt it, ask the families of the Wendy's massacre victims. See what
they think.

But first, the Rockefeller statutes.

Under the current law - passed at the former governor's insistence - the
sentence for possession of four ounces (or sale of two) of narcotics is a
mandatory 15 years-to-life upstate.

For sure, this is no slap on the wrist.

Then again, it was never intended to be.

However, for all of the overblown rhetoric on this issue, the number of
first-offender, non-violent felons doing Rockefeller time is stunningly low
- - barely 50 in a prison population that exceeds 77,000.

That's a mere six hundredths of a percent of the total. Draconian? Please.

Moreover, fewer than 10 percent of all those convicted of a non-violent,
first-time drug offense actually go to prison in New York.

And of those actually serving drug sentences, nearly three-quarters are
second-felony offenders.

In other words, the vast majority of criminals serving time for drug sale or
possession are not innocent babes in the woods. They are just what you might
expect: hard-core criminals.

As far as social problems go, then, the Rockefeller-era laws aren't in the
same class with - for example - mass murders at fast-food stores.

But let's be frank: The lamentations you hear aren't really about the
Rockefeller laws anyway.

They are about prisons.

And they come from folks who might concede that David "Son of Sam" Berkowitz
belongs behind bars - but they rarely agree that anybody else does.

Need convincing?

What if the state Legislature and Gov. Pataki agreed to abolish the
Rockefeller-era mandatory minimum sentences - and, at the same time, they
adopted the governor's proposals to do away with parole in its present form,
and to empower prosecutors to appeal when crackpot judges set bail at
dangerously low sums?

Look at it this way.

Wendy's gunman John Taylor, already on probation for armed robbery, was set
free on $3,500 (!) bail after being arrested for two additional stick-ups -
and then after prosecutors had asked for bond to be set at $100,000.

True, Taylor shouldn't have been free in the first place: Five years'
probation for armed robbery is a ridiculously lenient sentence.

But, for the sake of argument, what if Queens DA Richard Brown had been
permitted to appeal the low bail set by Judge Pauline Mullings?

Would the Wendy's killings have been avoided?

No one will ever know.

Crimes that aren't committed - by definition - have no victims. So when the
crime rates drop, as they have so dramatically in recent years, the
constituency for tough law enforcement is diminished.

But, for some strange reason, criminals - even violent criminals - always
seem to have vocal supporters.

Which brings us back to the anti-Rockefeller Law activists and their ilk -
the folks who so rarely see a felon that they believe belongs behind bars.

The governor has said he would like to see some updating of the drug laws.

But he will not do that unilaterally: Pataki is demanding that sentencing
modification be part of his pending criminal-justice-reform legislation.

In addition to abolishing parole in favor of a "determinate sentencing" -
guaranteeing that a felon will serve at least six-sevenths of his term -
Pataki would allow the few true first-time drug felony offenders an appeal,
with the possibility of reducing their sentence to 10 years in prison. (Even
that, in all likelihood, is open to negotiation.)

And part of the plan is the provision permitting prosecutors to appeal
inappropriately low bail.

All in all, it's a sound proposal, allowing the judicial process some
flexibility when it comes to drug offenders, while clearly not sending a
signal that use and sale of illegal narcotics is something to be taken
lightly.

The question, though, is whether the Legislature - that is, the state
Assembly - is prepared to act upon the governor's legislation.

Or maybe the question should be: Would a responsible Assembly have any
reasonable choice but to adopt the governor's bills?

Look at it this way:

Sunday, in broad daylight, armed robbers forced their way into an
electronics store on Main Street in Flushing - directly across the street
from the Wendy's massacre site. They made off with an estimated $20,000
(without actually shooting anyone, thank goodness for small favors).

Whether or not the robbers meant to thumb their noses at a city sickened by
the Wendy's killings, that was the effect of their brazen crime.

Certainly the appropriate response to impudence of that sort - to violent
crime of all sorts - is to toughen penalties for violent criminals.

We would be willing to abolish mandatory sentences for drug felons who truly
have clean prior criminal records - but only in return for Gov. Pataki's
proposals, or something very closely approximating them.

We don't expect, however, that the anti-Rockefeller Law crowd will sign on.
Again, it is prisons that they object to, not the Rocky laws. In the end,
there can't be too many John Taylors walking the streets to suit them.