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.