PAST SUPPORTERS URGE DRUG LAW REFORM

ALBANY -- A quarter of a century after they helped to enact the Rockefeller
drug laws, a group of former government leaders is proposing a new plan to
reform the strict mandatory sentencing statutes they now view as an
expensive failure.

The plan, which former State Senator John R. Dunne said he will soon begin
circulating among lawmakers, would give trial judges much greater discretion
over sentencing and plea bargaining for nonviolent drug offenders.

It stops short of repealing mandatory drug sentencing provisions of the
Rockefeller drug laws or the Second Felony Offender Law, which many
reformers have sought. But it goes much farther than bills proposed by
Governor Pataki and Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye in giving trial court judges
the authority "to tailor dispositions to the specific circumstances of each
case," Mr. Dunne, who is of counsel to Whiteman Osterman & Hanna in Albany,
said.

Trial judges could impose prison terms well below the statutory minimums for
the highest-level drug felonies. And for low-level drug crimes, judges would
have more power to divert offenders to drug treatment as an alternative to
prison.

The bill is backed by the Campaign for Effective Criminal Justice, a group
of political, judicial and religious figures that Mr. Dunne organized last
year to lobby for reform.

Members include former Majority Leader Warren M. Anderson, a Binghamton
Republican who headed the State Senate when the drug laws were enacted in
1973; former Senator H. Douglas Barclay of Syracuse, who sponsored the
measures; and two former Court of Appeals judges, Richard D. Simons and
Stewart F. Hancock Jr., whose Court reluctantly, but repeatedly enforced the
mandatory sentencing laws. Mr. Dunne, who later served as Assistant Attorney
General for Civil Rights under President Bush, co-sponsored the Senate bills
in 1973.

Political Protection

The group was meant to provide some political cover for current lawmakers
that would enable them to scale back the drug laws without appearing to be
soft on crime. When it launched its campaign, the group said the statutes
"have handcuffed our judges, filled our prisons to dangerously overcrowded
conditions and denied sufficient drug treatment alternatives to nonviolent
addicted offenders who need help."

Its bill is designed to correct those problems and the timing of its release
is intended to shift the debate toward more comprehensive reform of the drug
laws than the Governor proposed last week, Mr. Dunne said.

A leading reform advocate, Correctional Association Executive Director
Robert Gangi, still prefers the bill sponsored by Assemblyman Jeffrion L.
Aubry, D-Queens, which would repeal the mandatory sentencing laws outright.
But he said, "The common wisdom might be that this has more political
viability than the Aubry proposal."

"It represents real reform because it encompasses two fundamental
improvements: it is the only proposal besides Aubry's that returns
sentencing discretion to trial judges, and it ties all that to expanded use
of drug treatment," Mr. Gangi said.

The Governor's bill, modeled on a plan proposed by Judge Kaye, would allow
the Appellate Division to review class A-I drug felony sentences and to
reduce the mandatory minimum term of 15-years-to-life to 10-years-to-life.
It would be limited to defendants convicted of drug possession, not sale.

For low-level drug offenders, the Governor's bill would ease the Second
Felony Offender Law by allowing trial judges to divert nonviolent offenders
to drug treatment programs, but only with the consent of the district
attorney.

Judicial Discretion

The bill proposed by Mr. Dunne's group would give trial judges, rather than
the Appellate Division, the power to deviate from the mandatory minimums for
all class A felony drug crimes based on the nature and circumstances of the
crime and the history and character of the defendant. For A-I felonies,
judges could impose a term as short as three-years-to-life. For A-II
felonies, they could impose probation.

Inmates who are already serving life terms for class A drug felonies could
seek review of their sentences by the original trial court and receive the
same reductions.

"When the judge imposed the life sentence his hands were tied," Mr. Dunne
said. Giving trial judges, rather than the Appellate Division, "a chance to
revisit the sentencing emphasizes our focus on the trial court's
discretion."

For lower-level drug crimes, the bill would allow judges to defer
prosecution for up to two years when the defendant is an addict and agrees
to enter a drug treatment program. Prosecutors would be consulted, but their
consent would not be required. Reformers have complained the prosecutorial
consent requirement in the Governor's bill would hamstring the diversion
program.

Access to Treatment

Under Mr. Dunne's bill, offenders who successfully complete drug treatment
would be eligible for dismissal or reduction of the original charges. But
prosecutors would have to consent to any reduction.

"The district attorney should not be the gatekeeper on access to diversion
and treatment," Mr. Dunne said. "The district attorney's legitimate role is
in the disposition of charges, so they would retain an absolute right to
veto any plea or disposition" below the original charge.

Prosecutors would be given the right to appeal a drug sentence as unduly
lenient, balancing the existing right of defendants to appeal sentences as
unjustly harsh.

Other provisions of the bill would:

Double the drug-weight thresholds for all drug crimes, and downgrade the
"attempt" to commit a drug crime to one felony class below the substantive
crime.

Eliminate plea restrictions and allow judges in A or B felony cases to
accept pleas to lesser crimes which do not mandate imprisonment.

Eliminate lifetime probation, but require as a condition of probation that
an offender enroll in drug treatment.