NO EXCUSES

Instead of finger-pointing, Pataki and Silver should seek a compromise on
drug-law reform.

Negotiations to reform the state's mindless drug laws have swirled into
oblivion, caught in the undertow of election-year posturing and
finger-pointing. The key players who will make or break reform - Gov.
George Pataki and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) - are
publicly blaming each other for the impasse. But it is Pataki's steadfast
refusal to take sentencing power away from prosecutors and return it to
judges, where it belongs, that is the major obstacle to meaningful reform.

The Rockefeller drug laws - named after the former governor who created
them - dictate stiff, mandatory prison sentences for most drug felonies.
Because prison time is automatic, judges have no authority to fit
punishment to particular circumstances or offenders. Sentences are
effectively determined by prosecutors when they decide which charges to file.

Prison shouldn't be mandatory for nonviolent drug offenders. Treatment
should always be an option. Curbing drug habits would salvage lives, reduce
crime and, because treatment is cheaper than prison, save taxpayers' money.

Unfortunately, eliminating mandatory sentences entirely isn't on the table
in Albany. Pataki has resisted that core reform. If he also continues to
insist that prosecutors retain the power to decide who gets treatment,
change will be reform in name only.

Pataki would allow judges to overrule prosecutors on treatment only in
limited circumstances. That's too little change for a system that is
responsible for putting 19,000 of the state's 67,000 inmates behind bars.

There is room here for compromise. Democrats want any changes in sentencing
laws to be retroactive. Pataki would require those already serving time to
petition the courts for release. If Pataki and Senate Republicans would
agree to take the treatment decision out of the hands of prosecutors, and
Silver and Assembly Democrats would agree to require current inmates to
petition for release, the result would be real discretion for judges.

Justice and common sense require sentencing flexibility that currently
doesn't exist. Unfortunately, finger-pointing seems to be a more finely
honed skill in Albany than governing.