The AWEARNESS Blog provides daily updates under four
socially-aware pillars of discussion: Social Rights, Well-Being, Political
Landscape and Hard Times.
New York
governors come and go (some more swiftly than others). State lawmakers tend to
hang around longer, but most of them eventually move on as well. For true
endurance, the statutes known as the Rockefeller-era drug laws are hard to beat.
The same may be said about attempts to scrap those laws, which came into being
in 1973, so long ago that disco was just beginning to be hot.
Nelson A. Rockefeller was governor then. Drug criminals had New York by the
throat in one of the city’s periodic heart-of-darkness phases. Rockefeller
wanted to show he could be tough as nails with dope dealers. The result was
statutes that eternally bear his name in common idiom. Their essence was to send
drug felons to prison for very long stretches, with sentences made mandatory and
leniency rendered unacceptable even for first-time offenders.
The laws were amended in 2004 and 2005, to ease some of the most
severe sentences. By then, they had been deemed overly harsh by most New
Yorkers, save perhaps those with portraits of Torquemada on their walls.
Occasional polls, like one for this newspaper in 2002, show that New Yorkers
overwhelmingly would grant judges more of a free hand in sentencing. That
includes a chance to send drug-addicted small fry into treatment rather than to
prison.
We are now in a moment when the laws are being scrutinized again,
in public hearings organized by a consortium of six New York State Assembly
committees. A first round was held in Manhattan last Thursday, on the 35th
anniversary of the laws’ signing by Rockefeller, and a second round is planned
for Rochester on Thursday.
Judging from the remarks of Assembly members at last week’s
session, they want major change, in particular to expand “judicial discretion”
over the fate of convicted drug offenders. “We’re on the precipice of real
Rockefeller law reform,” said Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, a Brooklyn Democrat.
Mr. Lentol is among half a dozen lawmakers who were in the Legislature back in
1973. He voted against the laws then, and doesn’t like them any better now.
But it is far from clear what, if anything, lies beneath that
precipice. The State Senate, dominated by Republicans, albeit with a weakened
grip, has not been eager to join the Democratic-led Assembly in tossing the
Rockefeller laws over the edge.
Indeed, positions have shifted little over the years.
Those who raise cries of “drop the Rock” say that mandatory
sentences are mindless and unfair to nonviolent offenders, that they give too
much power to prosecutors and not enough to neutral judges, that they steer too
many low-level schnooks away from relatively inexpensive rehab that would serve
them (and the state treasury) well, and that they are directed
disproportionately hard toward African-Americans and Latinos.
A leading critic of the laws, the Correctional Association of New
York, says that their effect is to give elected officials from 35 years ago,
many of them dead, more power over today’s narcotics cases “than the judges who
currently sit on the bench and hear all the evidence presented.”
In the same camp, you would probably find the present governor,
David A. Paterson. He has not spoken up on the subject of late, but he got
himself arrested in an anti-Rock protest six years ago, when he was a state
senator.
On the other side are those, including many of the state’s district
attorneys, who say that the threat of tough sentences is enough to induce some
addicted drug violators to seek treatment. And don’t kid yourself, prosecutors
say; street-corner dealers, even if not necessarily “drug kingpins,” are
violence-breeding menaces. Neighborhoods, they say, are well rid of these
lowlifes.
On the laws’ 35th anniversary, each side went to the hearing armed
with anecdotes and statistics. A figure that stood out, though, was one that
went unmentioned.
Bridget G. Brennan, the special narcotics prosecutor for New York
City, noted that in 1970 there were 1,146 homicides in the city. (Police records
put the number at 1,117, but that’s not the point.) In 2007, that figure had
been sliced to 496. The implication was that we could thank the Rockefeller laws
for this marvelous result.
Unmentioned was another number: 2,245. That’s how many homicides
the city recorded in 1990, our most blood-soaked year.
So for 17 years, starting with 1973, the murder rate grew and
stayed implacably high, even with the Rockefeller laws. Then, over the next 18
years, the rate dropped sharply. The roller-coaster statistical ride is enough
to make one wonder, at least in regard to murder, if the Rock really had
anything to do with the numbers going up or down.
E-mail: haberman@nytimes.com
Flash! May 8th 35th Anniversary of the Rockefeller Drug
laws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhYUZ5o9dx8
Anthony Papa interview on RNN /Rockefeller Drug Laws
Anthony Papa
Communication Specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance on RNN talking
about the 35th anniversary of the Rockefeller Drug Laws...RockefellerDrugLaw
DrugPolicyAlliance cocaine drugwar ondcp mandatorysentencing
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=81357
|
Politics
|
|
|
|
|
State Assembly Reexamines Drug Policy
 |
|
May
08, 2008
The State Assembly explored a public health approach to drug policy
on the 35th anniversary of the Rockefeller Drug Laws Thursday.
As the Assembly members were meeting, opponents to the laws gathered
in Lower Manhattan to protest the current system and asked for
reform.
"For major crimes like murders, judges have the final say. When it
comes to drug cases, he has to defer to the district attorney. What
kind of justice is that?" said Brooklyn Democratic Assemblyman
Joseph Lentol.
They say the legislation prevented thousands from getting drug
treatment, instead putting them behind bars.
One such man was Bronx resident and former heroin addict Juan
Jordan, who refers his 12-and-a-half years in jail as "lost years."
"They could have helped me to address my problem. Instead, they sent
me to jail," said Jordan, who was caught selling drugs in the early
1980s and sold drugs once he left prison. "I was selling drugs to
support my habit. And that was everything that I knew to do."
Governor Nelson Rockefeller signed the bills stiffening punishment
for drug crimes on May 8, 1973. The laws made New York safer, but
some legal experts say it was at a huge cost.
"Thirty-five years of Rockefeller drug laws means that tens of
thousands of people's lives have been wasted," said Ethan Nadelmann
of the Drug Policy Alliance. "People who have might justly have
served two or three or four years went behind for 12 or 13 or 14
years."
Once New York survived a heroin scourge and crack epidemic, drug
crimes fell dramatically. In 1996, there were more than 23,000 drug
felons in state prisons -- compared to just 13,000 this year.
There have been some changes, most recently in 2005, but to many,
those do not go far enough.
"Maybe 35 years ago when the Rockefeller laws were passed, they
could say we didn't know enough about treatment," said State Senator
Eric Schneiderman. "But it is absolutely clear we have evidence
about what works and what doesn't work and it's clear that throwing
people in jail for long periods of time doesn't reduce drug use and
doesn't reduce crime."
New York's special narcotics prosecutor criticized the recent
changes, which she said aided high-level traffickers.
"We also don't want to start to see crime escalate in neighborhoods
in the city that are still overrun with drug dealing," said Special
Narcotics Prosecutor Bridget Brennan.
Experts say any changes proposed by the Assembly are likely to have
the support of Governor David Paterson, who was arrested at a 2002
rally when he was a state senator. However, the current State Senate
may not share his desire for reform.
|
Regional News Network (RNN
TV)
Rockefeller Drug Laws:
Marking 35 Years
Interview with Anthony Papa:
Rockefeller Drug Laws: Marking 35 Years
Capital News 9
www.capitalnews9.com
Re-examining Rockefeller drug laws
Updated: 05/08/2008
09:08 PM
By: Josh Robin
NEW YORK
STATE -- Juan Jordan calls them lost years.
"They could have helped me to address my
problem. Instead they sent me to jail," Jordan said.
Hooked on heroin, the Bronx man was caught
selling drugs in the early ‘80s. As soon as he got out, he would be back
dealing again, serving in all 12-and-a-half years.
“I was selling drugs to support my habit. And
that was everything that I know to do,” Jordan said.” I was a heroin
addict."
His travails mirror many since May 8th, 1973,
when Governor Nelson Rockefeller signed bills stiffening punishment for drug
crimes. It made New York safer, but at a huge cost, say those marking the
anniversary.
"Thirty-five years of Rockefeller drug laws means that tens of thousands of
people's lives have been wasted. People who have might justly have served
two or three or four years went behind for 12 or 13 or 14 years," said Ethan
Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance.
And it's been years of protests, as
Thursday members of the state Assembly pressed for further changes to untie
judges in drug cases.
"For major crimes like murders, judges have
the final say. When it comes to drug cases, he has to defer to the district
attorney. What kind of justice is that?" asked Joe Lentol.
Governor Paterson is a strong opponent of the
laws, even getting arrested at a 2002 rally when he was a state senator. He
and State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno deferred to a commission
examining the state's sentencing.
But despite all of the passion, critics pose a
question -- how much reform is actually needed?
"When you're looking at the Rockefeller drug
laws, keep in mind the problems that they were looking to address and they
were very successful and addressing those problems," said Bridget Brennan, a
special narcotics prosecutor.
That was a scourge of heroin, followed by
crack.
Drug crimes are now dropping. From more than
23,000 state inmates in 1996 to a little more than 13,000 thousand this
year. It’s the lowers it has been in 20 years and only accounts for a fifth
of the prison population
New York's special narcotics
prosecutor criticizes recent changes in the last few years, which she says
aided high-level traffickers.
"We also don't want to start to see crime
escalate in neighborhoods in the city that are still overrun with drug
dealing," Brennan said.
She advocates drug treatment for addicts, a
goal also pushed by those opposing the law.
Copyright ©2007 TWEAN News Channel of Albany, L.L.C d.b.a. Capital News 9
http://www.empirestatenews.net/News/20080509-6.html
|
Empire
State News: NYCLU claims Rockefeller Drug Laws cause racial
disparities, huge taxpayer burden |
|
NEW YORK
- At a legislative hearing held in Manhattan, the New York
Civil Liberties Union presented testimony illustrating the stark
racial disparities and enormous financial burden generated by
the Rockefeller Drug Laws in New York City.
Robert Perry, the
NYCLU’s legislative director, testified at the joint hearing of
the State Assembly’s standing committees on codes, judiciary,
correction, health, alcoholism and drug abuse, and social
services.
“We urge you, as
legislative leaders, to advance the critique of a sentencing
structure that ties the hands of judges, grants prosecutors
enormous and essentially unreviewable powers, and results in the
routine miscarriage of justice,” Perry said.
Using maps created by the NYCLU and Justice Mapping Center,
Perry showed legislators that 25 percent of adults sent to
prison from the city come from areas, black and Latino
communities, with only 4 percent of the city’s adult
population. More than half are incarcerated on drug offenses
and 97 percent are black or Latino.
A second map
showed that state taxpayers will spend more than $1.1 billion to
imprison New York City residents convicted of drug offenses in
2006 over the course of their prison terms. Drug offenses will
account for more than 40 percent of prison costs for all city
residents sent to prison that year.
“The Rockefeller
Drug Laws are unjust, inhumane and ineffective,” said NYCLU
Executive Director Donna Lieberman, who did not testify. “Our
lawmakers can end this chronic injustice. They must muster the
courage to restore judicial discretion to drug sentencing and
explore alternatives to incarceration that treat non-violent
drug offenders instead of locking them away for years.”
Enacted in 1973,
the Rockefeller Drug Laws mandate extremely harsh prison terms
for the possession or sale of relatively small amounts of drugs.
Supposedly intended to target drug kingpins, most of the people
incarcerated under these laws are convicted of low-level,
nonviolent offenses, and many of them have no prior criminal
record.
Despite modest
reforms in 2004 and 2005, NYCLU says the Rockefeller Drug Laws
continue to deny people serving under harsh sentences the
ability to apply for shorter terms, and restrict the power of
judges to place addicts into treatment programs.
|
|
|
Newsday.com
Views vary at hearing on state drug laws
BY
ZACHARY R. DOWDY
zachary.dowdy@newsday.com
May
9, 2008
As
spectators booed and cheered, defense attorneys, prosecutors, treatment
providers and reformers testified before state lawmakers yesterday about the
ongoing battle of approaches in enforcing drug laws and rehabilitating
offenders.
The daylong hearing in Manhattan marked to the day the 35th anniversary of
the enactment of the Rockefeller Drug Laws, a set of mandatory sentencing
measures that made New York one of the most punitive states.
Speakers urged the panel to build on amendments to the laws in 2004 and
2005, with most calling for a more public-health based approach over a
criminal justice strategy. Those alterations lifted the most draconian
elements of the laws, such as lifetime incarceration for the most severe
offenses.
The hearing is part of a process to determine what else should be done.
"The city bar believes more should be done," said Robert Gottlieb, an
attorney in Commack and Manhattan, speaking for the criminal justice council
of the bar association of New York. "Allow them into drug treatment, not
prison."
Judy Whiting, of the city bar's corrections committee, said the Rockefeller
Drug Laws have wreaked "collateral consequences" on people convicted of drug
offenses and their families and communities.
"People convicted of drug-related felonies face really serious obstacles to
joining society once they are released," she said.
Lisa Schreibersdorf, president of the state Association of Criminal Defense
Attorneys, said legislators should adopt laws to "wipe away" a first-time
offender's record for minor drug offenses.
Bridget G. Brennan, special narcotics prosecutor for New York City, said
reforms to the drug laws have reduced the amount of time people serve in
prison and the number of inmates in for drug offenses without lifting the
threat of incarceration that motivated many to kick the habit.
"The threat of incarceration is critical to the success of our programs -
and it is a critical element in the success of our efforts to keep dealers
from taking over buildings, blocks and neighborhoods," she said.
Brennan echoed prosecutor Rhonda Ferdinand, who runs alternatives to
incarceration (ATI) programs for the city. "The plain and unvarnished truth
is that for the ATI process, the harsh sentences of the Rockefeller Drug
Laws was the backbone of our success," she said, drawing hisses and boos in
response.
"Drug cases are on the wane, so somebody's doing something right," said
Assemb. Joseph Lentol (D-Brooklyn). "The answer may lie somewhere in
between" reducing penalties and giving incentives for treatment and curbing
the drug trade.
Copyright © 2008,
Newsday Inc.
HOY Nueva York
Contra Ley Rockefeller
Piden tratamiento médico a cambio de una celda
Alexandra Ochoa / Alexandra.ochoa@hoynyc.com |
2008-05-09
|Hoy
Nueva York
Luego de 35
años de la aplicación de las leyes Rockefeller, ayer la Asamblea Estatal de
Nueva York sostuvo la primera audiencia, de dos, con miras a cambiar los
castigos excesivos por una política de salud pública para los ofensores por
narcóticos.
Un grupo de
manifestantes, entre activistas, políticos electos, ex convictos y sus
familias sostuvieron ayer una protesta frente a las oficinas de la Asamblea
para apoyar una reforma a las leyes que durante décadas ha enviado a miles
de adictos a las cárceles por porte de dosis mínimas en lugar de ofrecerles
un tratamiento para superar su adicción.
"Estar en
la cárcel fue una pesadilla que pude superar por mi fe en Dios", dijo
Anthony Papa, quien estuvo 12 años en prisión por llevar 4 onzas de cocaína
en 1985. "Yo se que estar en la cárcel no le ayuda a nadie a dejar las
drogas por eso estamos pidiendo un acercamiento diferente al problema".
Según los
números de Drug Policy Alliance, un 90% de los presos por asuntos de drogas
son afro americanos y latinos.
Un proyecto
de ley introducido por el líder de la minoría del senado estatal el año
pasado, Eric Schneiderman, se encuentra en estudio.
"La guerra
contra las drogas ha sido sin duda la política social más devastadora y
disfuncional desde la esclavitud", dijo Jack Cole, director de Law
Enforcement Against Prohibition.
Journal News editorial
May 8, 2008
Happy
anniversary - not!
New York
state is as conflicted as they come when it comes to drug crime and
punishment. Policy-makers loathe drug dealers but pursue anti-drug
strategies that do little to reduce the number of users; they lament the
inefficiencies associated with maintaining half-empty state prisons, but
worry more about the job losses and lost political clout that would come
with consolidating prisons; many acknowledge the unfairness of our so-called
Rockefeller drug laws, which are responsible for imprisoning thousands upon
thousands of relatively minor offenders, but fail to muster the political
will to untangle the 35-year-old mess. Our drug laws not only are
ineffective, but also hinder efforts to pursue policies that might
rehabilitate people and whole communities.
Today marks the 35th anniversary
of the drug laws passed on then-Gov. Nelson Rockefeller's watch, but there
will be no celebrations, just Assembly hearings in Manhattan on their
ineffectiveness, 10 a.m. in the Assembly Hearing Room, 250 Broadway, Room
1923. Long-touted legislative reforms enacted in 2004, with an eye toward
shortening the sentences of the nonviolent offenders serving the longest
mandatory sentences, resulted in freedom for just 400 offenders. Much more
should be done to fix drug laws that Robert Gangi, executive director of the
Correctional Association of New York, calls "outdated, wasteful, ineffective
and marked by racial bias."
Long prison
terms
The hallmark of the Rockefeller
measures was long, mandatory sentences for those arrested for even small
amounts of illegal drugs, curtailing the discretion exercised by judges.
Possession of just 4 ounces of cocaine would bring sentences of 15 years to
life in prison. The New York measures were among a spate of mandatory drug
laws enacted across the nation in the 1970s, spurred in large part by
rampant drug violence. Such related crime, though creeping up in some
communities, has subsided in New York; what hasn't is the number of drug
arrests, which have more than doubled since 1980, with the overwhelming
number of arrests for possession, not distribution.
Over the years, several studies
have pointed to racial disparities inherent in the measures, which have
tended to mete out harsher punishment for offenders caught with small
amounts of drugs like crack, more prevalent in minority communities, than
even larger amounts of drugs like cocaine, more prevalent among white
offenders. About 14,000 people are currently serving time in New York
prisons for drug offenses, nearly 40 percent of the prison population, at an
annual cost of approximately $36,000 per inmate. The imprisoned are
disproportionately racial minorities.
Resisting
change
More and more states, due to
widespread fiscal problems, are looking to save money by reducing their
prison populations. To the extent that those efforts divert at least some of
the savings to treatment, communities will gain. But other interests come
into play in New York; in some struggling upstate communities, the prisons
are the local economy.
Additionally, were it not for the prison populations in some upstate
Republican Senate districts, there would be insufficient numbers of people
to constitute a Senate district. No wonder Republicans, whose majority in
the Senate survives by the barest of margins, haven't been clamoring for
change. But that is what must come.
New York
should celebrate the 36th anniversary of the Rockefeller drug laws with a
drug policy that serves taxpayers, people and communities.
Ithaca Journal
Groups renew
push to ax Rockefeller drug statutes
By Jay Gallagher
May 6, 2008
ALBANY — Five and a half years ago, David Paterson, then a state senator,
was arrested for blocking the entrance to then-Gov. George Pataki's office
in Manhattan in protest over inaction in changing the state's harsh
Rockefeller drug laws.
Now Paterson is governor, and
advocates of overhauling the statutes are hoping he has retained his passion
to alter them. So far, however, he has been mum on the issue, and a
spokesman didn't respond to a request for comment Monday.
“He now has an opportunity to
exercise the kind of leadership he was advocating for then,” Robert Gangi,
executive director of the Correctional Association of New York, said Monday.
In advance of Thursday's 35th
anniversary of the enactment of the laws, Gangi's group Monday issued a
report claiming that despite some changes made to the laws in 2004, they
still unjustly imprison thousands of mostly poor and minority men while
doing little to fight the problem of illegal drugs.
The laws, adopted in 1973, were
championed by then-Gov. Nelson Rockefeller as a way to fight the rapid rise
of the use of illegal drugs.
The statutes mandated that
anyone caught, for example, with as little as 4 ounces of cocaine would be
sentenced to 15-years-to-life in prison, with the judge being given no
discretion. The sentences were set according to how much drugs a person was
caught with.
“The Rockefeller Drug Laws are
outdated, wasteful, ineffective, and marked by racial bias,” Gangi said.
“They distort law enforcement practices and foster imbalance in the
adjudication of drug cases. It is time that Governor Paterson and
legislative leaders achieved the long overdue objective of removing the
35-year-old stain of these statutes from New York's penal code.”
About 14,000 people are
currently serving time in New York prisons for drug offenses — about 38
percent of the prison population. The state spends about $36,000 per inmate
in state prison.
The law enacted in 2004 has
allowed almost 400 hundred people serving the long mandatory minimum
sentences to be freed.
It also raised the weight of
cocaine that would spark the maximum sentence from 4 ounces to 8 ounces, and
cut the minimum sentence to eight years. But it still left thousands more
behind bars who ought to be freed, Gangi said.
The major changes still needed
would restore discretion to judges about whether a drug criminal should go
to prison and end the practice of having the weight of drugs in a person's
possession — rather than his or her role in the transaction — as the sole
factor in a sentence, he said.
But Senate Codes Committee
Chairman Dale Volker, R-Depew, Erie County, doesn't think the laws should be
tinkered with any further.
“The trouble with giving judges
discretion in New York City is they'd just let everybody out,” he said. “I
don't think that's a good idea at all.”
Flash!
Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant Program Must Go!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-papa/anti-drug-task-force-fund_b_99219.html
Huffington Post
by Anthony Papa
Anti-Drug Task Force Funding Leads to Police Corruption and Destruction of
Lives
Posted April 29, 2008
In early March, a federally-funded
narcotics task force struggling to increase its fiscal support carried out a
crime sweep in 41 states. The sweep resulted in 4,200 arrests, with police
seizing large amounts of cocaine, marijuana and methamphetamine. Why a
massive raid? Was it the aim of the task force to eliminate street narcotics
in the name of a drug-free society? Nope. The cops were merely trying to
protect their bottom line.
The operation, called the "Byrne
Blitz," was carried out, mostly, to show the importance of the Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant Program. Byrne grants fund more than 4,000 police officers
and prosecutors that support 750 drug enforcement task forces in 50 states.
Fifty-six Attorneys-General joined twelve law enforcement groups, including
the Fraternal Order of Police, to lead the charge for increased funding and
gather support on Capitol Hill.The program's funds were drastically reduced
by Congress in 2008 to $170 million--more than two-thirds of its 2007
funding and significantly lower than its 2002 budget of nearly $900 million.
The Byrne grant program has its
critics, including the White House whose officials were quoted in the
New York Times as saying
that the program has not demonstrated results. I agree with the White House.
In fact, I would take it a step further -- the Byrne program should not be
funded at all. Dozens of major scandals exist, showing the pitfalls of the
program that has clearly wasted billions of dollars and perpetuated racial
disparities, police corruption, and civil rights abuses.
The most notorious example occurred
in 1999 in Tulia, TX. Residents of this sleepy Texas town felt a mini
version of a "Byrne Blitz" when 46 people were scooped up and arrested in a
sting operation funded by the Byrne program. Tom Coleman, an undercover cop,
conducted an 18-month, racially motivated sting that eventually earned him
the "Outstanding Lawman of the Year" award from the Attorney General of
Texas. The drug bust incarcerated almost 15 percent of the black population
in Tulia, sentencing them to a total of 750 years in prison. Coleman was
eventually discredited and found guilty of perjury. He was sentenced to 10
years probation. Thirty five of those arrested by Coleman were pardoned in
2003 by Texas Gov. Rick Perry and a $5 million settlement from an eventual
civil suit was awarded to those arrested in the Texas sting.
In 2002, a report issued by the ACLU
of Texas named 17 scandals involving Byrne-funded, anti-drug forces in
Texas. The tainted cases were rife with instances of falsifying government
records, fabricating evidence and other abuses of power. Recent scandals in
other states include the misuse of millions of dollars in federal grant
money in Kentucky and Massachusetts, and false convictions based on police
perjury in Missouri. The list goes on with additional abuses in Alabama,
Arkansas, Georgia, New York, Ohio and Wisconsin.
The Byrne grant program has been
criticized for wasting tax dollars and failing to reduce crime. Several
leading conservative groups, such as the American Conservative Union and
Citizens Against Government Waste, have called on Congress to completely
eliminate the Byrne program because it has been proven to be an ineffective
and inefficient use of resources.
The original intent of the Byrne
program was to provide financial support to state and local governments to
make communities safe and improve criminal justice systems. This surely is
not the case, based on its history of corruption and the destruction of
human lives. In this struggling economy, misguided policies from the federal
government need to be eliminated, not supported.
Anthony Papa is author of
15 To Life:
How I Painted my Way to Freedom,
and a communications specialist for Drug Policy Alliance (www.drugpolicy.org).
______________________________
Flash: April 24, 2008:
Assembly Hearings on Rockefeller—May 8 in NYC, May 15 in Rochester
Dear Friends,
An
important development has emerged in the last few days related to the
Rockefeller Drug Laws. This email contains important information about this
development and some potential next steps. Please read down, including the
invitation to a conference call next Wednesday, April 30, at 2 p.m.
Over the
course of the last year, many of us have worked together to advance a public
health approach to drug policy in New York. We have generally agreed that
getting rid of the failed Rockefeller Drug Laws is not enough—New York needs
a coordinated drug policy guided by public health principles, not prison
politics.
The
Assembly has heeded our call. On Monday, the Assembly announced an
invitation-only hearing held by six Assembly Committees: Codes, Corrections,
Judiciary, Health, Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, and Social Services. I don’t
know when there has been a six-committee joint hearing in the Assembly
before, making this an unprecedented opportunity for us to advance our
cause.
We have
worked hard over the last many months to develop consensus on a range of
critical issues related to real reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. People
on this email list represent groups working in ATI’s, re-entry, drug
treatment, sentencing reform, direct services, mental health, civil
liberties, harm reduction, families and friends of the incarcerated,
formerly incarcerated people, community members, and more. We make a
remarkable team. The legislation we’ve crafted together will no doubt
receive a significant boost as a result of these hearings. And the hearings
are an opportunity to transform the way our drug policies are discussed,
crafted, implemented, measured and evaluated. I believe this is a real
chance for us to re-frame the issue—move it outside of the criminal justice
paradigm, and into a public health paradigm. Put another way, this is an
opportunity for us to change the game.
It is
important that we all sign up to testify at the committee hearings—and it is
equally important that we coordinate our efforts so that our collective
message is loud and clear, and that our individual voices can ring strong.
Next Wednesday, April 30, we will hold a conference call to discuss the
Hearings, coordinate a strategy for our testimonies, and make sure we’re
hitting all the right points. Can you join us on the call?
Conference Call
Wednesday, April 30 2 – 3 p.m. Conference Call in number: 877-306-8255
Conference ID 3297365
This call
will be to:
·
discuss the Assembly hearings
·
coordinate our testimonies,
to ensure that the Committee Chairs at the hearings hear about the need for
a new paradigm in New York.
·
Identify key action steps for
May 8 and May 15, including media messaging.
·
Coordinate follow up steps
post-hearings.
I will be
following up with most of you in advance of the call. I imagine there might
be many questions, so please feel free to call me directly on my cell phone
at 646-335-2264 if you’d like to talk. ~gabriel sayegh
Enclosed is
the Assembly announcement. The Hearing dates are on Thursday May 8 in NYC—on
the 35th anniversary of the Rockefeller Drug Laws—and on May 15
in Rochester.
ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON CODES
ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON CORRECTION
ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG ABUSE
ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SERVICES
NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
Oral Testimony by Invitation
Only
SUBJECT:
The Rockefeller Drug Laws – 35 Years Later.
PURPOSE:
To explore the impact of the “Rockefeller Drug Laws” on drug addiction,
drug-related health problems and drug-related crime; to examine the impact of
the 2004 and 2005 reforms of these drug laws in addressing drug abuse and the
illegal drug trade; to examine the effectiveness of substance abuse treatment
services as an alternative to incarceration and as a means to address offender
recidivism; to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of existing substance
abuse treatment services and resources; to explore whether the current criminal
sentence structure should be continued or whether judges should have additional
discretion to divert drug abusers into treatment as an alternative to
incarceration; to examine access and barriers to social services for persons
with a history of substance abuse released from incarceration.
|
DATE |
LOCATION |
TIME |
|
Thursday, May 8, 2008 |
Assembly Hearing
Room
250 Broadway, Room
1923, 19th Floor
New York, New York |
10:00 A.M. |
|
Thursday, May 15, 2008 |
City Hall Council
Chambers
30 Church St., Room
302-A
Rochester, New York |
10:30 A.M. |
May 8,
2008, is the 35th anniversary of the enactment of New York’s
“Rockefeller Drug Laws.” The stated purpose of these laws was to deter the use
and sale of drugs by imposing harsh mandatory prison sentences on drug
offenders. There have been a number of amendments to those laws over the
years. Recently, in 2004, New York amended the drug laws recognizing that a
drug policy which focused purely on inflexible criminal sanctions was
ineffective. At the time, both the Executive and the Legislature recognized
that while significant, the 2004 reforms, as well as a 2005 amendment,
represented just a first step towards meaningful reform and that other major
changes to the drug laws were urgently needed. However, since 2004 only the
Assembly has passed legislation to further reform New York’s drug laws.
Despite
sentencing reforms, large numbers of drug offenders continue to be incarcerated
in New York State prisons. As of January 1, 2008, 13,425 drug offenders were in
state prison representing more than 21% of the male prison population and more
than 33% of the female population. Statistics show that a large majority of
this population has never been convicted of a violent offense and up to 40% are
incarcerated for drug possession rather than for selling drugs. Notably, the
Rockefeller Drug Laws have disproportionately impacted communities of color –
more than 90% of all drug offenders in New York State prisons are Black or
Latino.
After 35
years of a drug policy focused on punishment with concomitant spending of
billions of dollars to put people in prison, the question raised is whether the
effort has been worth it and if not, whether New York’s laws should be amended.
Indeed, many argue that it may be time to broaden New York’s approach to
addressing drug addiction.
Unquestionably, drug abuse is a serious public health problem that affects
families and almost every community. Each year, even under the current scheme
of drug law enforcement, drug abuse results in an estimated 40 million serious
illnesses or injuries in the United States. Drug addiction is a treatable
disease, so among issues raised is whether a system that focuses on preventing
and treating drug addiction rather than simply incarcerating individuals will
result in a reduction in the use and sale of drugs – something mandatory
imprisonment laws have failed to accomplish.
Persons
wishing to present pertinent testimony to the Committees at the joint public
hearing should complete and return the enclosed reply form as soon as possible.
It is important that the reply form be fully completed and returned so that
persons may be notified in the event of emergency postponement or cancellation.
Oral
testimony will be accepted by invitation
only and limited to ten (10) minutes’
duration. In preparing the order of witnesses, the Committees will attempt to
accommodate individual requests to speak at particular times in view of special
circumstances. These requests should be made on the attached reply form or
communicated to the Committees’ staff as early as possible.
Twenty
(20) copies of any
prepared testimony should be submitted at the hearing registration desk. The
Committees would appreciate advance receipt of prepared statements. In order to
further publicize these hearings, please inform interested parties and
organizations of the Committees’ interest in receiving testimony from all
sources.
In order
to meet the needs of those who may have a disability, the Assembly, in
accordance with its policy of non-discrimination on the basis of disability, as
well as the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), has made its facilities
and services available to all individuals with disabilities. For individuals
with disabilities, accommodations will be provided, upon reasonable request, to
afford such individuals access and admission to Assembly facilities and
activities.
|
JOSEPH R. LENTOL
Member of Assembly
Chair, Committee on Codes |
HELENE E. WEINSTEIN
Member of Assembly
Chair, Committee on Judiciary |
JEFFRION L. AUBRY
Member of Assembly
Chair, Committee on Correction |
|
RICHARD N. GOTTFRIED
Member of Assembly
Chair, Committee on Health |
FELIX ORTIZ
Member of Assembly
Chair, Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse |
KEITH L. T. WRIGHT
Member of Assembly
Chair, Committee on Social Services |
SELECTED ISSUES TO WHICH WITNESSES MAY DIRECT THEIR TESTIMONY:
1.
Has New York’s
drug policy over the last 35 years reduced drug use, drug-related health
problems, and drug-related criminal behavior? If not, how should it change to
more effectively reduce drug addiction and related problems?
2.
Are mandatory
sentences of imprisonment an effective part of a drug policy strategy? Should
judges have discretion to sentence class B or above drug offenders and second
felony drug offenders to drug treatment programs as an alternative to
incarceration? Would expanding the number of drug offenders eligible for court
ordered drug abuse treatment as a potential alternative to incarceration help
break the cycle of addiction and crime and make our streets, homes and
communities safer?
3.
How many drug
courts are currently operating in the state? Are there sufficient
community-based treatment programs available to serve individuals participating
in the drug court program? How are the community-based programs utilized by
drug courts funded and what additional resources, if any, are necessary? What
changes, if any, should New York’s court system make to better address drug
abuse and drug abuse related crime?
4.
What role should
prosecutors and judges play in determining which offenders are diverted into
alternative to incarceration programs?
5.
How effective is
substance abuse treatment at reducing the rate of recidivism among persons
convicted of crimes? What kinds of programs,
supervision and resources would most effectively reduce the incidence of drug
use and drug-related crime?
6.
How effective
have existing programs (for example, Drug Treatment Alternatives to Prison and
“Road to Recovery”) been in addressing substance abuse and dependency? Are
there other prosecutor-sponsored and non-prosecutor sponsored initiatives that
are as, or more effective?
7.
What substance
abuse treatment services exist within New York State’s prisons and jails and do
they sufficiently meet the needs of inmates with a history of drug and alcohol
abuse?
8.
What pre-release
procedures used by the Department of Correctional Services and the Division of
Parole help ensure successful community integration of persons released from
prison who have a history of substance abuse? What steps are taken to ensure
that there is a continuity of treatment between prison and community substance
abuse treatment?
9.
What substance
abuse treatment programs and resources are currently available in the community
for persons released from jail and prison, and do they adequately meet the needs
of the tens of thousands of persons released from jail and prison in New York
each year?
10.
What are the
barriers faced by formerly incarcerated individuals with a history of substance
abuse in obtaining public benefits, medical assistance, and affordable, suitable
and stable housing? Is specific legislation needed to improve the process and
assist these individuals in applying for and obtaining public benefits? Are
employment, training, and/or educational programs available through local
Departments of Social Services for formerly incarcerated individuals with a
history of substance abuse? What impact do such programs have on drug abuse
relapse and recidivism? What can be done to improve employment and training
opportunities for this population?
11.
What is the cost
to taxpayers of the current mandatory incarceration laws? Are there potential
cost savings that can be derived from diverting more defendants into substance
abuse treatment as a potential alternative to incarceration?
12.
Two proposals
have been offered recently that proponents say are designed to encourage
addicted persons to seek treatment. One would decriminalize the possession of a
small, residual amount of a controlled substance in a hypodermic syringe when
the syringe is given to an authorized needle exchange program pursuant to
section 3381 (1) of the Public Health Law (A.6337). A second proposal would
encourage addicted persons and others to seek emergency assistance for persons
seriously ill from a drug overdose (A.8740). This proposal would restrict the
use in criminal court of evidence concerning the possession of a controlled
substance when such evidence is obtained as a result of the person seeking or
receiving health care services. Are these proposals meritorious?
_____________________
Flash: March 28, 2008
http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080328/NEWS01/803280350/1002/NEWS01
ALBANY
— Advocates at the Capitol Thursday asked lawmakers to overturn the mandatory
sentences required by the Rockefeller-era drug laws and instead let judges
decide how long offenders should stay in prison.
Under current
law, drug offenders are sent to prison when they would benefit more from drug
treatment, which would also save the state money, said Robert Gangi, executive
director of the Correctional Association.
Would you rather
run into a drug user on the street who has been in a treatment facility for the
last three years or that has done three years in Attica (prison)?” he said.
Members of the Correctional Association and other groups in the Drop the Rock
coalition were among many advocates who took their issues to the Capitol in a
last-minute effort to get their agendas reflected in the state budget. Lawmakers
are supposed to have a spending plan before the new fiscal year begins — April 1
— but they are behind schedule.
Environmental
advocates pushed for passage of the “bigger better bottle bill,” which would
require non-carbonated beverages — water and juices — to carry the same 5-cent
deposit as soda and beer containers. They also pushed for congestion pricing for
New York City — an additional tax on those who drive into parts of Manhattan
during peak travel hours during the week. The goal of the measure would be to
discourage car use in the city, improve the environment and encourage more to
use mass transportation.
Education
advocates urged lawmakers to increase the income tax for people who earn $1
million or more a year to help fund the state's education system.
The
Rockefeller-era drug laws, enacted in 1973, require long prison terms for the
possession or sale of a relatively small amount of drugs, Gangi said.
Drop the Rock
members said that reforms to the drug laws in 2004 and 2005 did not go far
enough. Prison terms for non-violent offenders who don't buy or sell large
amounts of drugs should be shortened, and the state should increase money for
drug treatment and other alternatives to incarceration, they said.
There are about
13,400 drug offenders in state prisons at a cost of $500 million per year, or
almost $37,000 per inmate per year, Gangi said.
The state should
invest in alternative drug treatment, he said.
An outpatient
drug treatment service can cost between $2,700 and $4,500 per person per year,
and residential drug treatment centers can cost between $17,000 and $21,000 per
person per year, Gangi said.
The number of
drug offenders in prison is declining, according to the state Department of
Correctional Services.
“For the 11th
year in a row the number of drug felons under custody has been reduced,”
correction department spokeswoman Linda Foglia said. “There were 10,084 fewer
drug offenders
under custody
than there were in 1996 when the number peaked at 23,511 drug offenders - that's
a 43 percent reduction.”
However, there
has been a recent spike in newly incarcerated inmates with drug charges, jumping
from 5,657 in 2004 to 6,148 in 2007, she said.
Assembly
Corrections Committee Chairman Jeffrion Aubry, D-Queens, has proposed a bill
that would effectively dissolve the mandatory minimum sentencing laws and
replace them with new, suggested sentencing guidelines for judges to follow when
sentencing drug offenders.
Sen. Dale
Volker, R-Depew, Erie County, said he thinks sentencing guidelines are a good
idea but could allow too many dangerous offenders to slip through unpunished.
Many drug offenders could benefit more from treatment than jail time, he said.
“I believe in
treatment, I believe that we should not send low-level offenders to jail unless
under extreme circumstances,” such as if they are repeat offenders, he said.
“Very, very few
people go to jail under the Rockefeller Drug Laws,” Volker said, only the
biggest drug dealers.
“It is the
re-offenders, not the new offenders, that are creating the problems with
prisons,” he said.
dosburn@nycap.rr.com
Flash: march 5, 2008 :russell simmons
might finish what he started in 2003
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=79139
Governor Responds To
Hip Hop Moguls Demand For Drug Law Reform
March 05, 2008
The governor
responded Wednesday to some very heated language used by hip hop mogul Russell
Simmons to describe his stance on the Rockefeller drug laws. Speaking out on
NY1's "Inside City Hall" Tuesday, Simmons said Eliot Spitzer is failing to live
up to promises to reform the state's strict drug laws. Political reporter Josh
Robin filed the following report. “I'm very disappointed in the governor. I
should say that the hip hop is getting ready to get in his ass,” Russell Simmons
said on Tuesday night’s “Inside City Hall.”
Simmons says Governor
Eliot Spitzer as a candidate talked a good game about reforming the Rockefeller
drug laws. But 14 months after inauguration, some feel cheated. "He promised all
of us that he would do something about this prison reform issue,” said Simmons.
The fiery issue is a
set of laws among the strictest in the nation, demanding sentences for the sale
or possession of drugs. African Americans and Latinos are hit especially hard,
making up 91 percent of those behind bars. The laws account for 21 percent of
the prison population, costing a half billion dollars a year.
Running for office,
Spitzer impressed advocates. "As a candidate, Eliot Spitzer was enthusiastically
in favor of reform of Rockefeller,” said Assemblyman Jeffion Aubry. “I will
continue to support efforts to reform these laws," he said in a survey. It’s a
position he reiterated Wednesday, but now with a caveat.
"We're trying to come
up with something that is reasoned that will maintain safety. People should not
forget, we have seen a dramatic drop in crime over the years in New York State,”
said Spitzer. “And that's because – I can say this as a prosecutor – we
prosecute crimes, we're tough, we lock up those that are guilty. And so we have
to be very measured and reasoned in what we do.”
A recent spike in the
release of violent criminals has Spitzer on the defensive, although aides noted
a majority of the parole board's appointees are carryovers from the Pataki
administration. Spitzer did set up a commission that recommended in some cases
alternatives to prison, but only with the agreement of the court, the defense
and the prosecution.
Some feel no real
reforms will happen until the State Senate is stripped of its Republican control
– a margin now at just one seat.
"We're really
counting on 2009 when hopefully there will be the leadership in Albany across
the board to push for major Rockefeller reform together, with a comprehensive
reform of New York's drug policies,” said Ethan Nadelmann of Drug Policy
Alliance, an advocacy group against the nation’s war on drugs.
As for Simmons'
remarks, Spitzer still calls him a friend. – Josh Robin
__________________________
HUFFINGTON POST
Posted March 4, 2008 | 06:25 PM (EST)
by Anthony
Papa
Does former President Bill Clinton
want to become a drug policy reform advocate? On its face, it would seem
that way following President Clinton's keynote speech at the University of
Pennsylvania last week commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Kerner
Commission report that addressed the causes of racial disturbances in the
1960s. Clinton admitted his administration's failure to end the racial
disparities in sentencing of powder and crack cocaine offenses. He said he
regretted not doing more about it, and that he would be prepared to spend a
significant portion of his life trying to make amends.
President Clinton's comments came on
the heels of historic changes recently enacted by the U.S. Sentencing
Commission that gives judges the ability to retroactively reduce the
sentences of 20,000 crack cocaine offenders. The law went into effect on
March 4, 2008 when 1,600 offenders became immediately eligible for release
and thousands of others would be eligible in years to follow. Criminal
penalties for possession and sales of cocaine are severe. But the penalties
for crack cocaine are more severe, despite the fact that pharmacologically
they are identical. Under federal law, 500 grams of powdered cocaine is
equivalent to five grams of crack cocaine. Despite the majority of users
being whites or Hispanic, the majority of those incarcerated for crack
cocaine crimes are black. The 100-to-1 sentencing disparity has been
condemned by a wide array of criminal justice and civil rights groups for
its racially discriminatory impact.
Some critics would be quick to say
Clinton's statement is nothing more than a political ploy to generate
support for his wife's presidential run and his new-found concern is too
little too late. I would give Clinton the benefit of the doubt and welcome
him to tackle the tough drug policy issues that exist. This includes
battling the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws, which incarcerate a majority
of blacks excessively long sentences. Out of the 12,000 or so drug prisoners
in the state of New York, 91 percent are black and Latino. It makes sense
for him to take interest in this issue since the Clintons live in Chappaqua,
New York, not far from two maximum security prisons, Bedford Hills
Correctional Facility and Sing Sing. Additionally, Clinton has his office
headquartered in Harlem, a community heavily affected by these drug laws.
Clinton
should read the recently released report by Pew's Public Safety Performance
Project on incarceration rates. It found that one in 15 black adults is
incarcerated and also one in nine black men between the ages of 20 and 34 is
finding his way into our gulags. Clinton can be a valuable asset to the drug
policy reform movement and help dismantle unfair drug laws that waste
valuable tax dollars and destroy lives. Let's give him a chance to do right
by New York's communities of color.
Anthony Papa is a communications
specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance Network.
h
http://timesunion.com/TUNews/author/AuthorPage.aspx?AuthorNum=58
Flash! Governor Spitzer Grants No Clemencies in 2007!
Albany Times Union
Spitzer puts clemency in cooler
Advocates for inmates expected governor to show more compassion
By PAUL GRONDAHL Staff writer
First published: Saturday, December 29, 2007
ALBANY -- Going against gubernatorial tradition and the practice of his
predecessors, Gov. Eliot Spitzer has not granted any executive clemencies this
holiday season.
That's prompted criticism from prisoner advocates, who said he missed an
opportunity to improve his plummeting approval ratings by showing mercy and
letting worthy inmates out of prison early after they've served many years
behind bars.
"He's behaving like Ebenezer Scrooge," said Robert Gangi, executive director
of the Correctional Association of New York State. "We expected mercy and a big
heart from him, with so many prisoners awaiting clemency. It's very
disappointing."
A total of 333 of the 63,500 inmates in the state prison system met the
requirements this year to apply for executive clemency, also known as a
commutation of sentence. That power was granted to the governor in the state
constitution of 1777.
Spitzer did grant a pardon last week, to Frederick Lake, a Jamaican immigrant
who spent six years in prison for robbery. Lake has lived in Brooklyn with his
wife and sons since 1997, and Spitzer's pardon spared Lake from deportation.
By comparison, the three previous governors, each of whom served multiple
terms, used the clemency power freely: Pataki, 32 times; Cuomo, 37 times; and
Carey, 155 times.
Spitzer does not have a formal policy on the practice, said Jennifer Givner,
a spokeswoman. "We carefully review clemency and pardon requests on a
case-by-case basis," she said.
Anthony Papa is disappointed by Spitzer's dearth of clemencies and pardons.
He was granted clemency on Dec. 23, 1996, by Pataki, who was cast as a
law-and-order Republican after winning election with a call to reinstate the
death penalty.
Papa, who's now a prisoner advocate, said the conventional wisdom was that
Spitzer, a Democrat, would be a kinder, gentler governor on matters of crime and
punishment.
"It totally floored me that Spitzer didn't show some compassion and give
clemencies," said Papa, who served 12 years of his 15-to-life sentence for a
drug conviction.
"Spitzer could be countering his downward spiral in the polls by showing some
mercy with clemencies. Instead, he's playing it safe politically," said Papa,
author of a memoir, "15 to Life." He's a communications specialist for the Drug
Policy Alliance, a national group headquartered in New York that is working to
repeal the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
The director of Prison Families of New York, based in Albany was also
disappointed.
"The governor knows there are many cases that were overly sentenced and this
is his opportunity to make a political statement," said Alison Coleman.
Exercising the power of executive clemency carries a political risk,
especially for those with presidential aspirations, as Cuomo and governors of
other states discovered.
"The use of the pardoning power of a governor of a state is constantly
subject to severe
