DRUG LAW A DISGRACE

New York's harsh Rockefeller statutes are in urgent need of sweeping
reform

Viewers of last week's "60 Minutes'' program got a close-up, and
human, look at the addictive power of drugs, even in the most unusual
of circumstances. It was a profile of Laurie Hiett, 36, who was
sentenced in federal court in Brooklyn to prison on charges of
smuggling heroin and laundering cocaine drug money, and her husband,
Army Col. James Hiett, 48, who faces sentencing for spending some of
$40,000 in laundered cash.

To the average viewer, two aspects of this story were unusual. One was
the role Colonel Hiett was supposed to fill while stationed in Bogota
as the U.S. commander of anti-drug activities in Colombia. The other
was how blind the colonel was to his wife's addiction, at least until
it became impossible to ignore.

But to New Yorkers, the story held a third element of surprise. Mrs.
Hiett received five years in prison for shipping packages of drugs
worth $700,000 to New York City. She may be eligible for release in
three years, while her husband may never see jail time.

The irony is bitter because, had their cases fallen under New York
state's Rockefeller drug laws, the punishment would have been more
severe. The Rockefeller statutes are the harshest in the country,
mandating terms of 15 years to life for selling more than two ounces
of a narcotic, or possessing more than four. But the New York City
connection aside, the Hewitts were not tried under these laws. They
appeared before a U.S. District Court judge in Brooklyn.

Coincidentally, the day after the program aired, demonstrators
gathered outside the Capitol to urge lawmakers to reform the
oppressive Rockefeller drug laws that have added needlessly to the
jail population when treatment would be a more effective and
productive alternative.

It mocks justice when punishment is not uniformly tailored to fit the
crime. Then again, the Rockefeller drug laws were never as much about
justice as they were about politics. The late Governor Rockefeller
pushed them through the state Legislature in an attempt to enhance his
standing with the Republican Party's conservative wing and his appeal
as a national candidate.

Even if one accepts the ostensible rationale for these statutes --
that they would deter drug crime -- there can be no justification for
resisting reform today. The record is clear: The laws have not stemmed
drug crime. Nor have they snared the big-time pushers they were
intended to punish. Instead, many offenders have been on the lowest
rung, as delivery "mules.''

To his credit, Governor Pataki has extended clemency in recent years
to some of these low-level offenders who were facing many long years
of confinement. And he stands ready to support reform, although he
insists on tying it to abolishing parole, which should be treated as a
separate issue. Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, has
criticized the excessive prison terms that have resulted from the
Rockefeller drug laws and is poised to support their overhaul. The
holdout remains Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, who
blocked reform last year out of fear that his party would be viewed as
being soft on crime. This year, there has been so little movement on
the issue that it has failed to make the short list of priorities for
the final weeks of the session.

But it should be on that list. This isn't about being soft on crime.
It's about correcting a gross injustice within New York's justice
system. And the time for reform is long past due.