DRUG REFORM SENSE

A proposal by a reform coalition holds out the best hope for a just
and humane compromise

A fter more than 25 years, New York state's Rockefeller drug laws have
proved unduly harsh on low-level offenders and woefully ineffective in
stemming the drug trade. It's no wonder, then, that everyone from
Governor Pataki and Chief Judge Judith Kaye to public advocacy groups
is searching for ways to reform the laws. But when the dust settles,
the best hope for a just and humane overhaul lies in a proposal put
forth by John Dunne, a former state senator who voted for the
Rockefeller laws back in 1973. Nowadays, Mr. Dunne, a former assistant
attorney general under President Bush, heads a coalition of liberals
and conservatives that is seeking to reform the antiquated statues.

The Times Union examined the Rockefeller laws from a variety of
perspectives in a four-day series last week. We looked at the cold
statistics on drug crime and the heated rhetoric of politicians who
call for retaining the statutes. We looked at the lives shattered by
drugs, and we examined the views of experts on addiction and
rehabilitation. But the most compelling stories came from those caught
in the Draconian system -- the small-time offender who wound up
serving a sentence of 15 or 20 years or more, even as the kingpin
pushers walked free because of a loophole in the otherwise punitive
statutes.

Yet even as New York state grapples with reform proposals, other
states have long since embraced more enlightened approaches to drug
crimes. In Florida, for example, treatment is more likely to be
ordered by the courts than incarceration. In Arizona, state lawmakers
have enacted the antithesis of the Rockefeller laws by mandating
treatment for nonviolent drug offenders. The results are astounding.
The Arizona Supreme Court found that 77.5 percent of those referred to
treatment had remained drug free after one year. As our series found,
in New York the first thing that many drug offenders do when leaving
jail is to look for a fix.

There is no shortage of reform proposals now before the Legislature,
but all fall into three main categories. One is incremental reform,
such as Mr. Pataki's proposal to give appellate judges the power to
reduce the mandatory minimum sentences of 15 years for first-time
offenders convicted of possessing, but not selling, illegal
substances. The governor, to his credit, also advocates closing the
loophole that is now exploited by drug kingpins.

A second approach lies in the sweeping overhaul suggested by
Assemblyman Jeffrion L. Aubrey, D-Queens. He would repeal the
Rockefeller laws and establish new sentencing guidelines. Ideally,
that is what New York needs. But with politicians so fearful that they
might be criticized for being soft on crime, the chances of sweeping
reform seem remote at best.

That leaves Mr. Dunne's proposal, which offers a common ground between
the incremental and aggressive overhaul. He would not repeal the
mandatory minimum sentences but instead lower them. More important, he
would give judges the discretion to mandate treatment for offenders
instead of prison, even if the prosecutor objects.

The last provision is surely the most controversial. Under the
Rockefeller laws, prosecutors hold most of the cards. They can decide
which offenders to indict and at what level. If they win a conviction,
the judge has no choice but to impose the mandatory minimum. But
justice should be about punishment fitting the crime -- not about
punishment imposed by blind mandate. Lawmakers should endorse Mr.
Dunne's plan as quickly as possible.