JUSTICE REFORM SHOULD BEGIN WITH DRUG LAWS

While New York is focused on other matters unfolding in Albany, an
important process is under way that could bring desperately needed
changes to the state's broken criminal justice system.

The state Commission on Sentencing Reform, established by Gov. Eliot
Spitzer, has an ambitious agenda focusing on criminal justice reform.

At the top of this agenda are the infamous Rockefeller Drug Laws.
Over the next week, in non-public meetings, the commission will
receive and vote on a first round of recommendations, made by a
subcommittee. The commission will issue a preliminary report in
October; its final report is due in March.

The commission and its recommendations deserve intense scrutiny by
New Yorkers who care about effective and genuine drug law reform.

Advocates working for real reform of the drug laws have remained
somewhat skeptical about the prospects for change under the
commission, and for good reason: Substantial evidence backing "real
reform" of drug laws already exists.

In 2004, then-Senate Democratic Leader David Paterson -- now
lieutenant governor -- released a report illustrating that New York's
drug laws were among the most draconian in the country. The
comprehensive report garnered the support of advocates, academics and
the media. Paterson introduced legislation to enact report
recommendations, but it died without even a public hearing.

Over the last 34 years, numerous reports have been written about the
Rockefeller Drug Laws. The vast majority concluded what most New
Yorkers already know -- the laws are ineffective, racist and unjust.

Almost all of the reports have recommended that the laws be
overhauled or repealed. Unfortunately, sound research and reason have
never been enough to compel Albany to act.

Perhaps this is why the governor established the commission -- to
build the bipartisan support needed to enact meaningful reform. For
this reason, despite our skepticism, drug law reform advocates have
provided testimony and research for the commission.

The testimony highlighted four components that must be included in
any meaningful reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws:

Restoration of judicial discretion in drug cases: The Rockefeller
Drug Laws, which include the Second Felony Offender Law, did not
eliminate discretion; they simply shifted power from judges to prosecutors.

Prosecutors have a vested interest in keeping these laws on the books
so they can garner information, seek assets forfeiture and move cases
expeditiously as a result of one-sided plea negotiations conducted
behind closed doors.

These actions help promote the severe racial disparities that have
become a hallmark of the laws: Over 91 percent of those incarcerated
under these laws are black and Latino, even though whites use drugs
at equal or slightly higher rates. Sentencing reform: The half-step
reforms of 2004 did not affect the people most in need of a reform --
those convicted of B-level offenses. Most individuals charged with
B-level offenses face mandatory prison sentences if convicted of
selling or possessing, with intent to sell, any amount of narcotic.
The probability of going to prison for such an offense is greater
than the probability of going to prison for a violent felony offense.

Community-based drug treatment alternatives to incarceration: In
2000, California voters passed a treatment-not-incarceration
initiative -- Proposition 36. Rather than being sent to prison, more
than 150,000 people have been placed in state-funded, community-based
drug treatment programs, saving state taxpayers more than $1 billion.

Some prosecutors in New York argue that placing drug offenders in
tretment, rather than prison, will increase violent crime.
California's violent crime rate has dropped more than the national
average since the passage of Proposition 36. Retroactivity: Nearly
14,000 people are incarcerated under the Rockefeller Drug Laws. Most
should be resentenced under an equitable system that allows for
treatment and rehabilitation.

These reforms fit into the commission's mandate, will protect the
public and will save the state money through better management of our
criminal justice resources.

If substantial drug sentencing reform is absent from the commission's
report, or if the recommendations are purely cosmetic, the commission
will have abdicated its responsibility in favor of the failed status quo.

If the recommendations are worthwhile, but Albany again fails to act,
the report can serve New Yorkers in another way -- as a very
expensive paperweight.

Gabriel Sayegh is a project director at the Drug Policy Alliance, a
leading member of Real Reform New York.