ROLLING BACK STIFF DRUG SENTENCES

Twenty-five years after the first law mandating tough prison terms,
states look for new ways to punish drug offenders.

NEW YORK - A quarter century after New York ushered in the nation's
first mandatory drug-sentencing laws, some states are showing signs of
rolling back the mandates - a trend with far-reaching ramifications
for the American criminal-justice system.

Worried about burgeoning prison populations, New York and several
other states are beginning to look at ways of punishing nonviolent
first-time drug offenders that don't require substantial jail time. At
the same time, however, states are enacting even stricter sentencing
laws and abolishing parole for dangerous felons, particularly violent
sex offenders.

The twin moves underscore a truism of American criminal justice in the
late 1990s: At a time when much of the public still wants tough
treatment of criminals, states have to deal with the implications of
those sentiments by erecting more buildings with bars and concertina
wire.

To be sure, many politicians and much of the public don't want any
retreat from mandatory minimum sentences - including for drug
offenders. They believe it is the best way to tackle America's
entrenched drug problem.

A principal problem is that [mandatory sentences] aren't targeted
sufficiently at high-level dealers.' - Jonathan Caulkins, Rand Corp.

But critics counter that the laws create an inequitable system of
justice that often punishes marijuana dealers more harshly than it
does violent felons. Largely because of these laws, they say, the
prison population has tripled since 1980. They also argue it makes the
system inflexible, taking away too much discretion from judges.

"States are clearly trying to be thoughtful about sentencing and make
sure the laws passed are resource sensitive," says Donna Lyons,
director of the criminal justice program of the National Conference of
State Legislatures in Denver.

This summer, Michigan - which had some of the toughest drug laws in
the country - set up new guidelines and rolled back its
mandatory-minimum life sentence for drug dealing. Connecticut,
Oklahoma, Arizona, and almost a dozen other states have either passed
legislation or set up commissions to revamp their criminal codes -
including minimum sentences.

And in New York, the legislature is expected to at least modify the
Rockefeller drug laws this session.

"There would certainly be symbolism in the undoing of the Rockefeller
drug laws, but it's also a practical policy decision," says Julie
Stewart, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a
Washington-based advocacy group made up of families of prisoners. The
challenges created by the Rockefeller drug laws in New York reflect
those facing other states. Initially aimed at high-level drug dealers,
they've often ended up netting low-level dealers and "mules" - those
who carry the drugs for the dealers.

Story of Thomas Eddy

Thomas Eddy was among the first to be sentenced under the Rockefeller
drug laws. Arrested in 1979 for selling two ounces of cocaine, he
expected to get a couple of years in jail, and then maybe probation.

Instead, the sophomore at State University of New York, Binghamton, a
National Merit Scholar who had his future ahead of him, got 15 years
to life.

"Even the judge said she wouldn't have given me that sentence if she
had discretion, but she didn't," says Mr. Eddy, who was granted
clemency after 13-1/2 years.

A chief concern with mandatory sentencing is that it is often missing
its intended target: big-time drug dealers.

This has occurred as discretion has shifted from judges, who are
required to mete out certain sentences regardless of circumstances, to
prosecutors, who determine whether to bring charges that carry a
mandatory-minimum sentence, experts say. Often, the higher-level drug
dealers have more information to trade and, thus, can cut better deals
with prosecutors.

"The principal problem with current mandatory minimums is that they
aren't targeted sufficiently toward the high-level dealers," says
Jonathan Caulkins, author of a Rand Corp. study on mandatory
sentences. But the numbers of low-level dealers imprisoned have
increased dramatically. In 1980, only 11 percent of the people
committed to state prisons in New York were there for drug offenses.
By 1997, 47 percent were committed for drug offenses. That increase is
reflected nationwide - and the costs associated with it are enormous.
A new study by the Washington-based Justice Policy Institute (JPI)
found that since 1988 New York has increased the amount it spends on
prisons by $761 million, a 76 percent jump. At the same time, spending
for higher education dropped by $615 million, or 29 percent. "That's a
major portent for the future," says Vincent Schiraldi, JPI director.

That trend is also national. In 1980, states spent 6-1/2 times more
for higher education than for corrections. Today, that's been narrowed
to just twice the level.

But supporters of mandatory-minimum drug laws argue such analogies are
misleading. The Manhattan Institute's William Stern says it would be
just as easy to compare corrections costs with food or energy costs,
as to education spending. "It's unpleasant for society to spend money
on prisons ... but it is clearly the way historically that societies
have protected themselves and punished the lawless," says Mr. Stern,
former chairman of the New York Urban Development Corp.

Stern and other supporters also credit the increase in the prison
population, at least in part, for the steady drop in the crime rate
over the past six years.

Link to crime rate

But critics counter that during the first 20 years that mandatory
minimums were in effect, the crime rate continued to climb. They
attribute the recent crime-rate drop to community policing and
demographic changes. They also point out that the drug problems in the
inner cities have not improved, even though the drug laws
disproportionately affect inner-city minorities.

The JPI study found that in 1980 283 whites, 260 Hispanics, and 333
blacks were incarcerated in New York prisons for drug offenses. By
1997, the number of whites had almost doubled to 545, but the number
of imprisoned Latinos had jumped over 1,600 percent to 4,459. And the
number of blacks increased more than 1,300 percent to 4,727.

"For young people of color from the inner cities, we are cutting back
funds for programs that would help them gain access to the mainstream
of society, and at the same time we continue to pour resources into
prisons," says Bob Gangi of the New York Correctional Association, a
corrections think tank.

That frustration is shared by many in the law-enforcement community. A
study last year by the Police Foundation found that 85 percent of
police chiefs said major changes in drug policy are needed, and 60
percent said the war on drugs has failed.

"There's a great deal of frustration among the police chiefs that the
problems they deal with in the inner cities are not lessening as much
as they should because poor addicts don't get treatment," says Patrick
Murphy, former New York City police commissioner. "It's not only wrong
that we don't treat addicts, ... but it's dumb."

The Rand Corp. found that mandatory minimums were the least
cost-effective way to reduce drug use and drug-related crime, when
compared with conventional sentencing and treatment.

Other studies have also questioned the effectiveness of mandatory
minimums. But Mr. Caulkins cautions that such analysis often does not
affect value judgments. "There are people who believe that a person
who sold five ounces of crack deserves this long sentence, and they
don't care whether it's an efficient way to spend taxpayers' dollars.
To them, it's matter of justice," says Caulkins.

For Eddy, it is a matter of injustice. He's about to earn his law
degree and is determined to fight the mandatory-minimum drug laws.
"What destroyed me was not drugs, it was a mandatory-minimum
sentence," he says.

Checked-by: Don Beck