The Need For Reforming Of Rockefeller Drug Laws - Case Study Example

The Need For Reforming Of Rockefeller Drug Laws Abstract The Rockefeller Drug Laws, implemented by New York’s then-Governor in 1973, mandate that the same sentence be meted out in drug-related offenses as that given to murderers. The seeming harshness of the penalties could be explained by saying that, if rehabilitation efforts fail, the only thing left would be to jail the offending citizen. This was especially true at the time – drugs were becoming more and more prevalent, and then-Governor Nelson Rockefeller desired a way to curb the problem. However, more than three decades later, drugs have, if anything, become an even bigger problem than before – no thanks to these laws. Despite having been intended to jail the drug kingpins, these laws instead victimize small-time drug dealers – in other words, those who would not be selling drugs if they had any other option. Thus, since they are quite clearly ineffective, and worse, unfair, this researcher proposes that they either need to be reformed or need to go. Rockefeller’s Drug Laws – An Introduction 1973 was a tumultuous period in American history – drug use was becoming more and more prevalent, and rehabilitation efforts were falling flat. And if rehabilitation wasn’t working, it was decided that maybe what was needed was severe punishment for possession (not even usage) of drugs. Thus, May that year, then-New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller came up with what would later be known as the Rockefeller drug laws. As one would expect, the changes entailed by this law were drastic, to say the least. It required judges to throw discretion to the wind in cases of drug possession, which were to be met with a long prison term of at least 15-25 years – as some of us know, the same sentence meted out for murder. According to the Drug Policy Alliance Network’s official website (accessed 12/08/09), this law was intended to target major drug dealers – drug kingpins. However, the reality was far different from the ideal; instead, most people incarcerated as a result were those with low-level, nonviolent offenses, some of whom had absolutely no prior criminal records. For sure, most of the ones incarcerated as a result of these laws were likely small-time drug dealers – hardly deserving of the harsh prison terms the laws mandate. Even as early as 1977, the detrimental effects of these laws had already been noted. As discussed by Aaron D. Wilson of the Partnership for Responsible Drug Information (2000), the Committee on New York Drug Law Evaluations criticized the law harshly in its report, noting that heroin usage and crimes relating to it was at its peak in 1976, even more than it was prior to the laws’ implementation. All in all, it deemed the laws as a failure – despite the government having spent $76 million and appointing 49 new judges to handle related cases. That was also the same year marijuana was removed from the laws’ jurisdiction. According to legislators, marijuana-related offenses weren’t worth the prison space and criminal justice resources – criminal prosecution and incarceration were too much, they said. Thus, this student’s stand on the matter is this: he opposes the Rockefeller Drug Laws, not because of what they stand for, but because they are doing it wrong. Among other things, as he will discuss in the succeeding pages, the laws are racist, unjust, and inhumane. As such, they clearly have no place in American society and need to go. Why they need to go First off, let it be said that the implementation of these laws isn’t entirely unjustified, given the situation at the time. The government had tried to rehabilitate drug offenders, and for the most part, they failed. Thus, it wasn’t too surprising that they would try to come up with a harsher punishment, and a more effective deterrent to illegal drug use. What better way could there have been than to punish drug offenses with instant prison terms? The idea, presumably, was that no one who had drugs could get away with it – thus, even drug moguls, for all their power and wealth, would be unable to bribe their way out of jail. All in all, in theory, this is a good aim, though the measures entailed may be a bit drastic. However, in practice, it went horribly. For a start, as already noted above, most of the offenders incarcerated under the terms of this law are those who wouldn’t have anything to do with drugs if not for their pitiable social status. This means that the small fry are jailed, while those who really keep the drugs circulating (the drug lords and kingpins) get away. Not to mention, despite research showing that most people who sell and/or use drugs are whites, majority (90%, to be exact) of those jailed on drug charges are blacks and Hispanics. The Rockefeller laws have indeed filled up prison cells, but with the wrong people – in more ways than one. Going with the previous statements, the laws could also be considered racist. As also explained on the Drug Policy Alliance Network’s website (accessed 12/08/09), these laws have the most negative impact on the Negro and Latino communities. These communities comprise about 23% of New York’s total population, but 91% of all drug offenders; it is said that more blacks and Latinos get jailed for drug charges than graduate under the public school system. This racism has already been noted not only by groups such as the Human Rights Watch and Physicians of Human Rights, but the residents of New York themselves – which should say something about how ineffective the laws are. What makes these laws even more unjust is that they leave absolutely no room for discretion. In most cases, judges are allowed some input as to what sentence to mete out, taking into account the circumstances of the crime and the perpetrator; thus, the circumstances from which the suspect came, and under which he committed his crime, could play a part in lightening (or aggravating) the sentence he was to receive. None of these apply to the Rockefeller laws; it doesn’t matter whether one is a first-time offender or a known drug user - the same punishment will be meted out (DropTheRock.org, accessed 12/08/09). As a result, over 12,000 people, most of whom have no history of violent behavior, are forced to serve disproportionate sentences resulting from drug-related offenses. It also fails in other areas, namely the financial and economical aspects. DropTheRock.org also explains how the state of New York spends roughly $520 million each year just to imprison offenders – taking into account the previous paragraphs, this means that the system spends so much to imprison the wrong people. Repealing the laws, says the site, would save the state $270 million a year, more than half the amount they spend on drug cases. Not to mention, since those who would have been unnecessarily incarcerated would be part of the workforce instead, much, much more is gained in the way of revenue. As most of us would agree, however, the ones who these unjust laws hit the most are none other than the offenders themselves, as well as their families. As explained on the NYCLU’s website (2009), 11,000 of those incarcerated of drug charges in 2002 were parents of young children. More saddening is that 50% of them were never visited by their children – who, embittered by their parents’ (inevitable) absence and lack of guidance, probably went astray. And of course, eventually, these will have to be cared for by the state by means of welfare programs – proof that the Rockefeller Drug Laws pose a financial strain not only in the short-term, but in the long-term as well. Most also agree that rehabilitation is a much more cost-effective, not to mention humane alternative to the mandatory sentencing scheme. In a press conference, Speaker Sheldon Silver (2009) says that drug use and addiction is an issue of public health as well as a criminal issue. Specifically, he notes how roughly $45,000 is spent to imprison a low-level, nonviolent drug offender, and how having that same offender go to rehab would cost $15,000 – exactly one-third of the cost of incarceration. Also, this student would like to add, rehabilitation instead of incarceration would at least lessen the impact on the perpetrator’s loved ones; rather than prison experiences embittering someone, he would (hopefully) instead be motivated by his family to stop doing drugs. And of course, the rest of the family would not be hit by the sudden absence of a breadwinner, which is usually the case. The Second Felony Offender Law which was passed the same year only serves as a source of further grief for these offenders (Real Reform New York, accessed 12/08/09). As the name would imply, this law mandates much harsher penalties for those who commit the same felony offense the second time around, regardless of whether both cases were violent or not, or of the time between convictions. The undesirable combination of these draconian policies has resulted in a massive influx of prisoners into New York’s penitentiaries; for instance, in 2003, 38% of the prison population was comprised of drug felons – a stark contrast to 11% in 1980. And as of January 2007, 943 women and 12,985 men are incarcerated on drug charges – 70% of whom have never been convicted of violence. All in all, what has been discussed so far only supports the position that the Rockefeller Drug Laws are horribly messed up. As such, they need serious revision – or better yet, they need to go entirely. Many are the cases where the judge had an alternative, and likely much more compassionate sentence in mind, but was forced to sentence the offender to a lengthy prison term instead – a result of the laws’ nonexistent provisions for discretion. Most agree that these laws have failed on so many levels already; this being the case, something needs to be done. Reforms made Luckily, New York’s lawmakers have become aware of the drug laws’ detrimental effects, as they have since been working to enact reforms to these glaringly draconian policies. In December 2004, as detailed on the Drug Policy Alliance Network website, the Drug Law Reforms Act (DLRA) was passed. As the name implies, this entailed limited reforms including sentence reductions, increases in merit time, and reforms to harsh parole practices. In addition, those serving the most severe sentences were allowed to apply for resentencing under the reformed laws, and the eligibility for prison-based (rather than community-based) drug treatment was expanded. On the whole, these reforms are a small step in the right direction – but not nearly enough to make the laws more humane and just. According to P. David Soares, Albany County’s District Attorney (accessed 12/08/09), reforms to the Rockefeller laws are necessary to reduce violent crime. Specifically, these reforms must first of all restore judicial discretion – in all cases, judges must be allowed to take the circumstances of the crime as well as those of the offender into account in order to come up with a just sentence, and drug offenses are no exception. Sentences much also be reduced in order to match those for other non-violent crimes in order to bring New York’s standards closer to those of the rest of America. Alternative programs such as drug treatment, as most sources also agree, should be expanded in order to cater to more low-level offenders. Last, but not least, those already jailed by the laws should be allowed to seek retroactive sentencing. Do the Rockefeller reforms achieve these goals? The answer is half and half; as already explained, current inmates are allowed to seek resentencing in order to lighten their disproportionate sentences. Drug treatments are getting there – while the reforms probably should have emphasized community-based rather than prison-based programs, it is still worth noting. On the flip side, however, judicial discretion is still conspicuously absent; that is, mandatory sentencing schemes are still law. Not to mention, even with the reforms, New York still holds the distinction of having the toughest drug laws in the country, and still metes out disproportionate sentences to drug offenders. Most will agree that so much more needs to be done. In a report by the Legal Aid Society, one year after the reforms were passed, both the accomplishments and shortcomings were detailed. First, under the new, determinate system, the minimum sentences have been reduced greatly overall as compared to the old, indeterminate sentencing scheme. Someone convicted of an A-I felony, assuming that was his first, would only get eight years, as opposed to fifteen to life under the old law. By the same token, though, a second felony offender could face up to 20 years. As for those already in jail, 473 inmates convicted of A-I drug crimes were allowed to apply for resentencing, while those with lesser sentences experienced increase in merit time, allowing some of them to be considered for early release. This was a direct result of increasing eligibility for the Comprehensive Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment program (CASAT) from within 24 months to 30 months of a prisoner’s earliest possible release date; with this in mind, all possible good time and merit time will be taken into account. Also, as a result of the reformed law, judges now have the authority to have offenders undergo prison-based drug treatment, something previously exclusive to the Department of Correctional Services. While the reforms have been effective in these aspects, they are not without limitations. For instance, despite doing away with the harshest of the mandatory sentences, still little to no room is left for discretion – judges are still forced to order people to prison despite having a more effective sentence in mind. Also, it fails to set aside funds for drug treatment. The outcome is as if legislators only addressed the complaints of the harsh sentences, while forgetting to take into account the existence of a cheaper and much more effective alternative. Not to mention, the bill fails to account for those serving less than A-I felonies, which means that A-II offenders would still be out of luck. As of October 29, 2005, however, this particular flaw has been addressed; some of the prisoners convicted of A-II felonies have also been allowed to apply for resentencing. However, despite this, the limited retroactive application of the reforms means that many prisoners still serve disproportionately long sentences. Feedback to reforms As to the reception of the reforms, there were people on both sides. Some people opposed it, believing either that it went overboard, or that it wasn’t nearly enough – as already explained, still little consideration was given with regard to judicial discretion. As said by Senators Thomas Duane and Joseph Bruno, more still remained to be done. The bottom line, said the latter, was helping people; this could be achieved best by coming up with alternatives for nonviolent offenders in particular. In a press release in 2007, Speaker Sheldon Silver also noted that these reforms, while very welcome, were just the beginning in reforming the Rockefeller laws. More important was that more dramatic reforms would follow that would significantly improve the state’s approach to drug offenses – for one thing, prison cells should be reserved for hardened drug users rather than non-violent offenders. Correction Committee Chair Jeffrion Aubry further laments that, even in their reformed state, the Rockefeller Laws are still flawed, and are still in need of further amendment. He has since proposed a bill for a more sensible, comprehensive, and cost-effective approach to lesser drug offenders. Earlier than that, in the bill’s immediate aftermath, the NYCLU (2004) stated that the Rockefeller Laws’ sentencing scheme is inherently unfair and unjust, in spite of reforms, and that New York still has the harshest drug laws in America. In particular, the sentencing grid for drug offenses was still said to be harsh and inflexible. Not to mention, B felons, those with lesser offenses, would still be out of luck – highly ironic and tragic, considering how most drug offenders in New York prisons fall under this category. According to Donna Lieberman, the NYCLU’s executive director, judicial discretion needs to be restored if the reforms are to be meaningful at all. Specifically, it is the judges who must have the power to decide on someone’s sentence, rather than the prosecutors. Robert Perry, NYCLU Legislative Director, further adds that while the reforms are a first step, it should not end there. Otherwise, it will appear as merely another excuse by apologists for the status quo to say that at least something has been done – never mind that that ‘something’ is far from enough. Conclusion The fact that the Rockefeller Drug Laws mandate disproportionate punishments for relatively minor drug offenses cannot be denied. Nor can it be contested that most people who go to jail under these laws are the small fry, the minor drug dealers – those forced into the drug business because they have no way of succeeding anywhere else. With this fact in mind, the Rockefeller laws become even more unjust than they already are. Thus, this student would like to propose an arguably effective, if indirect solution to the drug problem: education. It stands to reason, after all, that the small-time drug dealers and offenders would not have done the crime if other, more legal means were available. This probably does not guarantee that less New Yorkers will go to prison on drug charges, but at the very least, given proper education, they will have one less reason to get involved with drugs. References About the Rockefeller Drug Laws (accessed 12/08/09) Drop the Rock, Retrieved December 12, 2009 http://www.droptherock.org/?page_id=2 Gibney, W. (2005) 'New York’s experience with drug law reform', The Legal Aid Society, 1-4 New York must reform the Rockefeller Drug Laws (accessed 12/08/09) New York Civil Liberties Union, Retrieved December 12, 2009 https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=1373 Revisions to New York Rockefeller Drug Laws embrace the status quo (2004) American Civil Liberties Union, Retrieved December 12, 2009 http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/revisions-new-york-rockefeller-drug-laws-embrace-status-quo Rockefeller Drug Laws: Q & A (accessed 12/08/09) Drug Policy Alliance Network, r Retrieved December 12, 2009 http://www.drugpolicy.org/statebystate/newyork/rockefellerd/ Silver, S. (2007) ‘Assembly approves Rockefeller drug law reforms’ Retrieved December 12, 2009 from http://assembly.state.ny.us/Press/20070418/ Silver, S. (2009) ‘The Remarks of Speaker Sheldon Silver Silver: 2009 is the Year to Finally Reform Rockefeller Drug Laws {As Prepared for Delivery}’, Retrieved December 12, 2009 http://assembly.state.ny.us/Press/20090122/ Soares, P. D. (2009). ‘Rockefeller drug reform’, Retrieved December 12, 2009 from http://www.albanycountyda.com/issues/rockefeller.html What are the Rockefeller Drug Laws? (accessed 12/08/09) Real Reform New York, Retrieved December 12, 2009 http://www.realreformny.org/about.html Wilson, A. D. (2000) ‘Rockefeller Drug Laws information sheet’, Retrieved December 12, 2009 http://www.prdi.org/rocklawfact.html Read More