In reforming the 35-year-old Rockefeller Drug Laws, the New York State Assembly sought to restore judicial discretion to the sentencing process, striking a balance between punishment for violent and repeat drug convicts and rehabilitation alternatives for lower level and first-time offenders.
The laws, named for former Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller, who signed them into law in May of 1973, mandated minimum prison terms for the possession or sale of narcotics.
The Assembly’s reforms, passed on Wednesday, March 4, make all non-violent first and second felony drug offenders who plead guilty eligible for probation, a local jail sentence, a split sentence, drug abuse treatment programs or parole supervision. The reforms, which uphold existing maximum prison terms and augment prisoner re-integration initiatives, await approval from the State Senate and Governor David Paterson.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who announced the reforms along with Correction Committee Chair Queens Assemblymember Jeffrion Aubry – the legislation’s lead sponsor – Judiciary Committee Chair Helene Weinstein and Codes Committee Chair Joseph Lentol, referred to an “outdated drug policy that has been and continues to be an economic failure, a criminal justice failure, a public health failure, a family and community disaster.”
The lawmakers noted that the state spends around $45,000 per year incarcerating each of the 13,400 drug offenders currently in state prison. Thirty-nine percent of those are behind bars for drug possession, not selling, and only 20 percent have been convicted of a prior offense. Certain drug offenders currently incarcerated would be able to seek court re-sentencing under the new reforms.
The legislators added that initial reforms that decreased the length of maximum sentences and eliminated life sentences have saved the state close to $100 million since they were passed in 2004.
“This legislation restores humanity to drug policy here in New York,” Silver said of the new reforms. “It expands the sentencing options available to judges, without endangering the public.” Silver continued, “Judges are in the best position to know who is deserving of prison and who is not.”
Of course, the reforms have their share of opponents, including City Councilmember Peter Vallone. Vallone said in a statement that the “so-called ‘draconian’” laws were passed in the first place to give prosecutors power in the sentencing of drug criminals. “This action,” he said of the reforms, “will bring us back to those days” when “judges were putting drug dealers back on the street over prosecutors’ objections.”
“These dealers are not addicts who need treatment,” Vallone went on, “they are criminals who bring death to our children.”
Caught in the middle of the debate are agencies like the Campaign for an Independent Public Defense Commission (CIPDC), which calls for increased public defense funding and says inadequate defense could undermine the landmark reforms passed by the Assembly.
If a goal of the reforms is to eliminate the one-size-fits-all approach to drug sentencing, defendants will need a lawyer deeply familiar with their case and their background, said Marsha Weissman of the CIPDC-affiliated Center for Community Alternatives. A public defender, along with a sentencing specialist if necessary, must “come up with an individualized plan,” Weissman argued in a statement.
However, in announcing the legislation – which authorizes the creation of a drug court in each of the state’s counties – Silver appeared confident that the Assembly’s reforms were well planned out and would ultimately prove effective.
“The drug reform legislation we are advancing today reflects our years of study, consultation and debate, and our unrelenting commitment to reform” the Rockefeller Drug Laws, he said.
