GET REAL ON DRUG REFORM

Gov. Pataki proposes a modest change in the state's Rockefeller drug
laws, but a broad overhaul is needed

Just a week ago, there was reason to hope that New York state's
Draconian drug laws were about to be reformed. But now, with the fine
print in clear view, it is evident that Governor Pataki has made only
a gesture at reform. State lawmakers, and the public, should demand a
more substantive approach.

It's true that Mr. Pataki would open the way for review of some of the
harshest sentences imposed on first-time offenders convicted of
possessing four ounces, or selling two ounces, of an illegal
substance. Under the Rockefeller laws, that sentence must be a
minimum of 15 years. Mr. Pataki would empower appellate judges to
review these sentences and reduce them to 10 years when warranted.
Yet the number of such cases is placed at 300. By contrast, some
22,000 inmates out of a state prison population of more than 70,000
also are serving sentences for drug offenses -- including many who
plea-bargained to escape the harsher Rockefeller laws. They would not
be eligible for judicial review.

In exchange for his modest reform, Mr. Pataki wants the Legislature
to

approve eliminating parole for all felons, much as state lawmakers
agreed last year to abolish parole for violent offenders. Under the
governor's latest plan, judges would have wide latitude in fixing
sentences for all felonies, but once imposed there would be little
room for leniency. Prisoners would have to serve most of their time,
with a maximum of two-sevenths off for good behavior.

The idea of giving judges more discretion is a positive step. Indeed,
one of the great flaws of the Rockefeller drug laws is that they leave
judges virtually no room to make the punishment fit the crime. But Mr.
Pataki's plan

has the potential of going to the other extreme by giving judges so
much latitude that wide variations in sentencing might result. And
that would create the very sort of arbitrary system that Mr. Pataki is
trying to avoid by abolishing parole.

Mr. Pataki should concentrate more on giving judges the vital
discretionary power they now lack in deciding whether to incarcerate
those convicted of drug offenses, or to recommend treatment instead.
At present, prosecutors hold all the power by choosing which
offenders they will seek to indict. If there is a conviction, the
judge has virtually no choice in deciding the sentence.

Perhaps the greatest flaw in Mr. Pataki's package is that it links
drug law reform with abolishing parole, resulting in a take-it-or-
leave-it choice for the Legislature. Both issues need to be
considered separately. If Mr. Pataki wants to serve justice, he will
amend his proposal to do just that -- and now.