Albany Reaches Deal to Repeal ’70s-Era Drug Laws

This is good news. Rational news. News of compassion, logic, and, one hopes, a sufficient measure of thriftiness.

Perhaps this will encourage other states to at least revisit, if not repeal, mandatory sentencing for "first time non-violent" drug offenders. By automatically imprisoning these men and women for predetermined and unconscionably long sentences, their lives are lost and wasted -- with all the attendant ripples of the pool, the collateral damage of families torn apart.

Non-violent going in; God knows how violent and schooled-in-criminality coming out.

The weight and type of drug should not determine judicial outcome.

I remember listening to an old white man explain that there is no difference between powder cocaine and crack. Justice is not just blind. Her scales are broken.

I don't know how I feel about the many other parameters that come into play, particularly weapons and crimes committed in order to be able to afford the drugs. You are probably shocked to learn that I believe these decisions are best made by judges, not me: case-by-case, individual story upon addiction epic. Always remember, and never forget: You can't legislate Stupid.

The "kingpins," according to Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), have tended to escape the stringent mandatory sentences -- due, in part, to their ability to make valuable deals with the prosecution by trading information. Also, I'd wager (again, if only I knew a good bookie), due to their ability to afford high-end lawyering.

The disproportionate use of mandatory sentencing of people of color makes this good liberal knee-jerker very attentive and nervous. FAMM provides these disturbing statistics based on numbers from six years ago -- after I get another cup of coffee and wake up a bit, I'll try to update the figures:

People of color serve more mandatory sentences. African Americans account for 13 percent of the general population, yet in 2003 they comprised 27.2 percent of those receiving federal mandatory drug sentences. Hispanics constituted 12.5 percent of the general population but received 43 percent of the drug mandatory sentences. (U.S. Sentencing Commission Sourcebook, 2003; U.S. Census Bureau)

Those of you who believe that these drug laws help deter... it just is not so. Things turn out to be pretty simple: In 23 of 26 states with data available, the connection between drug commitment rates to prison and the percent of those using drugs is associated - states with higher rates of drug incarceration have higher rates of drug use. (Poor Prescription: The Costs of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States, Justice Policy Institute, 2000)

Want a better argument? I like this one! I hope you like it, too!

Some 76 percent of the offenders in the sample of a recent study and 89 percent of the most violent offenders were not aware of either the possibility of apprehension or the probable punishments for their crimes. ("The Deterrence Hypothesis and Picking Pockets at the Pickpocket's Hanging," by David A. Anderson, American Law and Economics Review, Fall 2002)

In other words: Ignorance of the law is not only "no excuse," it is also "no deterrent"! Hey, I am thinking of doing a needlepoint pillow. In my living room colors.

Over the years, I have heard divergent numbers about the cost effectiveness of X versus Y, and, frankly, my head is ready to burst over the bazillion bazoodles necessary for bailouts, and the tramidgeons of dollars of the national debt. In other words, I've no idea whether the figures FAMM and others cite are based in reality. I'm rapidly becoming a Luddite; If I cannot count the figure on my fingers, it just doesn't add up.

The other argument commonly elaborated? Public support. As in: Public support for mandatory drug laws has waned. Only 38 percent support mandatory sentencing laws, down from 55 percent in 1995. (Peter D. Hart Research, 2002) Puh-leeze. Stick with the arguments that matter and make sense. My trust in norteamericanos waxes and wanes according to my own political expediencies. I'm just sayin'. (I am at least consistent. I react the same way to arguments of "public support" concerning the application of the death penalty. Flights of human fancy have no place in the debate. Why not murder sanctioned by Gallup Poll? The death penalty legal and supported one inch over the Minnesotan border into Illinois -- How can such a thing be right? Incredibly, the Supreme Court proffers this argument -- at least once every 10 years or so.)

So... here's the deal about what is happening in New York:


ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson and New York legislative leaders have reached an agreement to dismantle much of what remains of the state’s strict 1970s-era drug laws, once among the toughest in the nation.

The deal would repeal many of the mandatory minimum prison sentences now in place for lower-level drug felons, giving judges the authority to send first-time nonviolent offenders to treatment instead of prison.

The plan would also expand drug treatment programs and widen the reach of drug courts at a cost of at least $50 million.

New York’s drug sentencing laws, imposed during a heroin epidemic that was devastating urban areas nearly four decades ago, helped spur a nationwide trend toward mandatory sentences in drug crimes. But as many other states moved to roll back the mandatory minimum sentences in recent years, New York kept its laws on the books, leaving prosecutors with the sole discretion of whether offenders could be sent to treatment.

“We’re putting judges in the position to determine sentences based on the facts of a case, and not on mandatory minimum sentences,” said Jeffrion L. Aubry, an assemblyman from Queens who has led the effort for repeal.

“To me, that is the restoration of justice.”

The agreement, which requires approval in the Assembly and the Senate, would allow some drug offenders who are currently in prison to apply to have their sentences commuted. It was not clear on Wednesday how many current prisoners would be eligible to apply. Mr. Paterson has pushed to have fewer prisoners than legislative leaders would prefer.

While a few points, like a resentencing provision and the amount the state is willing to spend on the plan, were still being negotiated late Wednesday, lawmakers said they were on track to wipe out the central elements of laws that have been criticized for decades as overly punitive and disproportionately harmful to minorities.

The laws, passed in 1973, are commonly known as the Rockefeller drug laws because they were championed by Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller in what was considered a bold response to the sharp rise in heroin use and property crimes among young people.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Paterson, Marissa Shorenstein, said reaching the deal, which she stressed was still being forged, was a personal victory for the governor, who has made drug law reform a priority of his administration. When he was a state senator, Mr. Paterson was arrested in 2002 at a demonstration outside Gov. George E. Pataki’s Midtown Manhattan office protesting the drug laws.

The reforms, Ms. Shorenstein said, “reflect the governor’s core principle to focus on treatment rather than punishment to end the cycle of addiction.”

Under the plan, judges would have the authority to send first-time nonviolent offenders in all but the most serious drug offenses — known as A-level drug felonies — to treatment. As a condition of being sent to treatment, offenders would have to plead guilty. If they did not successfully complete treatment, their case would go back before a judge, who would again have the option of imposing a prison sentence.

Currently, judges are bound by a sentencing structure that requires minimum sentences of one year for possessing small amounts of cocaine or heroin, for example. Under the agreement reached by the governor and lawmakers, a judge could order treatment for those offenders.

Judges would also have the option of sending some repeat drug offenders to treatment. Repeat offenders accused of more serious drug crimes, however, could only go to treatment if they were found to be drug-dependent in an evaluation.

District attorneys have resisted an overhaul of the state’s drug sentencing laws, arguing that the system in place has led to lower drug crime rates and allowed more drug criminals to enter treatment.

“The prison population is going down and public safety has improved, and I’d hate to do anything that would upset either of those trends,” said Michael C. Green, the district attorney of Monroe County, which includes Rochester. “No one knows for sure, but logic seems to dictate that is certainly one of the possibilities.”

In 2004, the state eliminated the life sentences some drug crimes carried as a maximum punishment and reduced the length of other drug sentences. But advocates said those changes did not go nearly far enough because they left judges bound to mandatory sentencing.

Since then, the Assembly, which is dominated by Democrats, has routinely passed legislation that repealed mandatory minimum sentences for many drug crimes. But the bills always failed to get past the Senate, which was controlled by Republicans until January.

Passing drug law revisions would give Senate Democrats a significant legislative victory at a time when Republicans are hammering them, saying they are disorganized and ineffective.

Senator Eric T. Schneiderman, a Manhattan Democrat who has led the effort in the Senate to overhaul the drug statutes, said he was confident he had support in the Senate to pass the plan.

“It’s no secret the Senate’s old majority was the primary barrier to reforming our drug laws,” he said. “But this is one of the reasons we fought so hard to take the majority. This is what our supporters have expected us to do.”

The deal comes as the state is facing a $16 billion budget deficit for the coming fiscal year. And finding the money needed to pay for drug addiction programs, which could reach near $80 million, will prove difficult, those involved in the negotiations said.

But in the long run, the changes are expected to save money because sending offenders to treatment is less expensive than spending $45,000 a year to keep them confined.

New York already has one of the most extensive drug-treatment networks in the country. Drug policy experts said that with the proposed changes in the law, the state could have the sentencing policy it needs to fully utilize those treatment programs.

“New York could actually become a national leader,” said Gabriel Sayegh of the Drug Policy Alliance, a national group that urges relaxation of certain drug sentencing laws. “We’re going in a public health direction here. We’re making that turn, and that’s what’s significant.”