DRUG LAW MYOPIA

Repeal of the Draconian Rockefeller statutes is justified by both the
numbers and priorities

It now appears that if there is to be any reform of New York state's harsh
Rockefeller drug laws this year, it will come in small increments only.
That much is apparent now that Governor Pataki and the state's chief judge,
Judith Kaye, seem in accord on a narrow agenda for a growing problem.

Judge Kaye addresses the most extreme aspects of the Rockefeller laws, or
the so-called A-1 offenses involving the sale of two ounces, or the
possession of four ounces, of hard drugs.

Mr. Pataki signals that he might be amenable to these changes, or perhaps
more, provided the Legislature gives him in return a ban on all parole.

Currently, those convicted of A-1 offenses must serve 15-year-to-life
terms. But Judge Kaye would permit the appellate courts to reduce the
minimum to five years. While the reform is a welcome step in the right
direction, it is only that -- a small step that is too narrow in scope to
address the larger problems of prison crowding and making punishment fit
the crime.

Of the more than 9,000 drug cases tried last year in New York state, for
example, only 45 were in the A-1 category, a point that hasn't been lost on
the state district attorneys. They have seized on the A-1 offenses to
refute claims by reformers that thousands of inmates in state prisons are
being sent to prison under harsh drug sentences every year. Yet in 1997,
they note, only 60 of the 854 indicted on such charges were actually
convicted.

But the debate should not be limited to a year's statistics. Instead, state
lawmakers -- and Governor Pataki -- should consider the broader picture.

It's this: New York prisons are bursting at 130 percent of capacity,
largely because of the influx of drug offenders.

Of more than 70,000 inmates, 22,600 are serving time for drug crimes.

Of that total, according to the Correctional Association of New York, 9,225
are serving 15-year-to-life drug sentences.

In addition, 11,000 other inmates convicted of drug offenses are serving
sentences of 4.5 to 9 years as second offenders.

Even if repeat offenders are taken out of consideration, there are still
some 7,000 inmates serving time for their first drug conviction. By
contrast, New York's prison population stood at 12,500 in 1973, the year
the Rockefeller drug laws took effect with the goal of acting as a strong
deterrent to pushers.

No one should argue that drug criminals receive leniency.

But not all drug crimes are the same. Some involve low-level nonviolent
offenses, such as possession of small quantities of illegal substances. Yet
the laws allow no leeway for judges to distinguish the varying
circumstances of each offense. Some nonviolent offenders wind up serving
more time behind bars than those convicted of violent crimes like assault.

Moreover, the Rockefeller laws, which were intended to catch drug kingpins,
have instead fallen disproportionately on the low-level offender who lacks
the resources to hire the legal experts that big-time dealers can afford.

Judge Kaye has suggested some other worthy reforms, such as permitting
eligible offenders a choice to complete a drug treatment program before
serving time. Such a constructive approach would help, but only if judges
have the discretion to consider each case on its merits.

And that cannot happen until lawmakers and Mr. Pataki agree to repeal
statutes that have neither served the purpose of stemming drug crime, nor
of serving justice.