Episode 22: New York’s Rockefeller Drug Law reform ten years later
In 2009, New York reformed its notorious Rockefeller Drug Laws. Ten years
later, veteran drug law reform activists Anthony Papa and Terrence Stevens
join “Drugs and Stuff” to reflect on the destruction the draconian
Rockefeller Drug Laws wreaked on so many New Yorkers and share their
thoughts on the reforms.
Today is the 10th anniversary of the historic reform of New York’s infamous
Rockefeller Drug Laws. Many people have forgotten the decades-long struggle we
went through to get meaningful reform of these laws. But I haven’t.
This is because in 1985, I made the biggest mistake of my life, which cost me my
freedom. Desperate for cash to support my family, I was convinced by a bowling
teammate to get involved with a drug deal. In exchange for $500, I transported
an envelope containing four ounces of cocaine from the Bronx to Mt. Vernon, N.Y.
To my surprise, I walked into a police sting operation, with 20 undercover cops
waiting for me. I did everything I could do wrong and I was convicted and
sentenced to 15
years to life under the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
The history of these laws is rich and
full of controversy. In 1973, two years after President Nixon declared a “war on
drugs,” New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller passed the toughest drug laws in the
nation, demanding mandatory sentences for people convicted of drug law
violations, while removing judges’ power to consider each case individually. The
Rockefeller Laws turned New York’s prison complex into a merciless machine,
destroying families and lives, and locking up tens of thousands of first-time
offenders, many addicted to drugs.
Eventually these laws became the template for the federal government’s draconian
sentencing laws passed in the 1980s, which imprisoned millions of Americans with
mandatory minimum sentences.
Finally, after many years of struggling to achieve meaningful reform, on April
2, 2009, Gov. David Paterson signed reforms into law. I attended the
historic bill-signing ceremony in Corona, Queens, at the Elmcor Community
Center. Paterson was joined by legislative and community leaders to pay tribute
to long-time Rockefeller reform champion Assemblyman Jeffrion Aubry, who was a
drug treatment counselor at Elmcor before he entered the political arena.
Paterson stood behind a podium and spoke: “This is a proud day for me and so
many of my colleagues who have fought for so long to overhaul the drug laws and
restore judicial discretion in narcotics cases,” he said. “For years, thousands
of New Yorkers have spoken out against the Rockefeller Drug Laws.” When he ended
his speech, I ran to the podium and embraced the governor. His security private
guards quickly surrounded me, not knowing if I was a threat or not. But they
backed off when they heard me thank him.
The new bill enacted broad changes to New York’s disastrous drug laws, including
restoring judicial discretion in most drug cases, expanding alternatives to
incarceration, and investing millions in treatment. Activists pointed out that
after years of ineffective mandatory minimums, mass incarceration, institutional
racism and billions in wasted taxpayer dollars, these reforms were long overdue
and essential for making a better New York.
This shows what is possible when people come together and work for change. While
advocates applauded the changes to the law, they also pointed out that reforms
should have gone even further and feared that outcomes would be hard to monitor
and report. It’s been ten years since the historic Rockefeller reform passed and
we are still far from where we need to be.
We’re in the middle of an overdose crisis and there still remains an
overreliance on the criminal legal system. In the spirit of this 10th
anniversary, it is my hope that with the help of Gov. Cuomo and the Legislature,
we can go further to end the drug war in New York.
Papa is the manager of media relations for the Drug Policy Alliance and the
author of “This Side of Freedom”.
Anthony Papa is the author of several books including "This
Side Of Freedom" and "Life After Clemency."
( Courtesy Anthony Papa )
Anthony Papa joins us to discuss his books This
Side of Freedom: Life After Clemency and
15 to Life: How I Painted My Way to Freedom.
He'll share his experiences returning home after serving
12 years of a 15-to-life sentence for a non-violent drug
crime sentenced under the mandatory provisions of the
Rockefeller Drug Laws of New York State. Last year, he
received a pardon from Gov. Andrew Cuomo and became the
first person in the state’s history to receive both
clemency and a pardon.
Does 15 years to life for one drug deal sound excessive to you? Our guest this
week, Anthony Papa, is a living example of the ineffectiveness of the
Rockefeller drug laws. Papa served 12 years at Sing Sing for a nonviolent drug
crime before Governor George Pataki commuted his sentence in 1996. Just last
month, Andrew Cuomo officially pardoned Papa, clearing his record after 20 years
of criminal justice activism fighting for criminal justice reform and against
the excesses of the United States’ War on Drugs.
Democracy Now: NY:
Anti-Drug-War Activist Anthony Papa Wins Pardon
Headlines Jan 10, 2017
In New York state, anti-drug-war activist, painter and
author Anthony Papa has received a pardon from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
In 1985, Papa agreed to deliver an envelope of cocaine in a police sting
operation in return for $500. His first and only criminal offense cost him a
15-year-to-life sentence. In 1996, Papa won a sentence commutation from then-New
York Governor George Pataki.He’s
believed to be the first person in New York state history to receive both a
sentence commutation and a pardon.
State officials
also believe Papa is the first person in New York history to receive both a
sentence commutation — which then-Gov. George Pataki granted him in 1996 — and a
pardon.
EXCLUSIVE: N.Y.
drug reform activist Anthony Papa receives pardon from Cuomo
Anthony
Papa leads protests against Rockefeller-era drug laws.
(Andrade,
Patrick)
[After nearly
two decades of fighting to get other drug offenders released from prison,
Anthony Papa finally received a pardon for himself.
A longtime
activist in the fight to reform New York’s drug laws, Papa was among the more
than 100 offenders granted a pardon or commutation by Gov. Cuomo on Dec. 30.
While
Papa’s pardon has been largely overshadowed by the controversy over Cuomo’s
decision to commute the sentence of former Weather Underground member Judith
Clark, Papa and other advocates see it as a significant milestone.
State officials
also believe Papa is the first person in New York history to receive both a
sentence commutation — which then-Gov. George Pataki granted him in 1996 — and a
pardon.
“The
pardon . . . is both a vindication and a public proclamation that I have
demonstrated exemplary behavior over the 20 years since I have been free,” Papa,
a 62-year-old Brooklyn resident, told the Daily News.
Papa said it’s
also a vindication of his belief that the 15-year-to-life sentence he received
as a first-time drug offender in 1985 was overly harsh.
The sentence was
typical of those handed out under New York’s Rockefeller-era drug laws, which
were adopted in response to the heroin epidemic of the early 1970s.
“He is a
living example of the inequities in the system that existed due to the
Rockefeller-era drug laws and has spent more than a decade working in the
pursuit of justice for others,” Cuomo said.
Anthony
Papa shown with some of his art work. State officials believe Papa is the first
person in New York history to receive both a sentence commutation and pardon.
(Roca, John)
“The
power of clemency is one I take very seriously, and Tony Papa’s work and deeds
made it clear to me he was deserving of a pardon.”
Papa was
convicted on drug sale and possession charges after he was caught holding just
over 4 ounces of cocaine a friend paid him $500 to take from the Bronx to Mount
Vernon in Westchester County.
“It was
Christmastime, I had no money, I had to pay my rent and I got desperate,” Papa
said. “And when you get desperate, you do stupid things.”
While in prison,
Papa focused on art, and one of his paintings — a self-portrait — was selected
for an exhibition at the Whitney Museum.
After Pataki
commuted his sentence, Papa became an activist for reforming the Rockefeller
laws. He formed the group Mothers of the New York Disappeared to advocate for
change and also went to work for the Drug Policy Alliance.
Papa
wrote two books about his experiences, with his latest memoir, “This Side of
Freedom: Life After Clemency,” now being distributed to prison libraries in New
York as a reference for inmates to prepare for their release.
In 2002,
Papa teamed up with Cuomo, who was then in the midst of his first campaign for
governor, to press the issue of drug law reform.
People
rally for the repeal of the Rockefeller Drug Laws outside the NYC Bar
Association on west 44th st as the Sentencing Commission holds public hearings
inside.Anthony Papa, a former inmate who wrote a book about his experience,
talks to the crowd.
(Cataffo,
Linda/New York Daily News)
“He used
to come out in the street and rally with us,” Papa said.
Cuomo’s 2002
campaign flamed out, but the issue did not, and in 2009, lawmakers approved a
package of drug law reforms that, among other things, gave judges more
flexibility to sentence low-level offenders to treatment instead of prison.
Despite his
relationship with Cuomo, Papa did not formally request a pardon for himself
until last year, after he was shut out of an apartment he wanted in Parkchester,
the Bronx.
“The
same crap happened,” he said. “They looked at me like I had two heads.”
Papa said he is
grateful to Cuomo for granting the pardon — calling him “a champion of the
people” — and is looking forward to regaining rights he lost because of his
conviction, especially the ability to serve on a jury.
He also
plans to continue his work helping other nonviolent drug offenders get out of
prison and adjust to life on the outside.
“There are many
roadblocks that people face when they are released, from housing to getting a
job, even relationships,” Papa said. “Prison does not end at the prison wall. It
goes beyond the wall.”
Convicted
of a first-time drug offensein
1985, Papa served 12 years under draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws before he was
released and went on to work at the Drug Policy Alliance. Now with the newly
announced pardon, the 62-year-old former prisoner will be able to enjoy the
restoration of some of the many rights forfeited after a felony conviction.
“Being granted the pardon was a vindication for me in that
it showed that my punishment did not fit the crime,” Papa toldThe
Fixthe day after news of the
pardons broke.
End-of-year clemencies are a gubernatorial tradition in
New York, but Papa’s pardon is unusual because the artist and writer was also
previously granted a sentence commutation by former Gov. George Pataki in 1997.
Papa was initially convicted of Criminal Sale of a
Controlled Substance in the First Degree after police used aconfidential
informantto set up a
sting. Under some of the nation’s harshest drug laws, the New York City native
was sentenced to 15-to-life. He got out after 12 years, when Pataki commuted his
sentence.
“Tony Papa broke the law but the real crime was committed
by the State of New York when it locked him up for 15–to-life for a first time,
non-violent drug transaction,” DPA Executive Director Ethan NadelmannsaidFriday
in a statement.
Papa thanked the governor, hailing him as a “champion of
the people” in the release.
“The road to freedom was not an easy one, and maintaining
that freedom is not easy because of the many roadblocks for formerly
incarcerated individuals,” Papa said. “I have tried to set an example to show
that people can become productive citizens upon release if given the
opportunity.”
Another high-profile beneficiary of Cuomo’s annual
goodwill is Judith Clark. Unlike Papa, who received a post-prison pardon, Clark
was given a sentence commutation that will make her eligible for release decades
sooner than expected.
Clark, 67, has served more than 35 years behind bars for
her role as the getaway driver in an infamous 1981 Brinks armored car robbery
that resulted in the deaths of three people, including two police officers.
She’s been locked up for longer than her six
co-defendants, most of whom are either dead or out of prison. One, Kathy Boudin,
had a similar role in the crime and is now a professor at Columbia University.
During her time in prison, Clark earned a bachelor’s and
master’s degree, taught pre-natal parenting courses, founded an HIV/AIDS
education program, trained service dogs, and served as a college tutor. Under
her original sentence of 75-to-life, she wouldn’t have become eligible for
parole till she was 106 years old. Now, she’ll be able to appear before the
parole board in early 2017.
While Clark’s and Papa’s clemencies were part of a
longstanding tradition, the Cuomo administration has frequently been stingy with
the annual gubernatorial act of mercy, especially when it comes to commutations.
But Friday’s actions could hint at a new approach to legal forgiveness.
The 101 conditional pardons also mark a new chapter in New
York state’s approach to criminal justice and re-entry.
The first of their kind in the nation, the conditional
pardons were granted to non-violent offenders who were convicted as minors and
have been crime-free for at least a decade. Cuomo initially announced plans for
large-scale conditional pardons back in 2015, but didn’t make good on them till
the final days of 2016.
"New York is a state of opportunity and today, we are
granting these individuals and others a second chance to live up to their full
potential, provide for their families and give back to their communities,” Cuomosaid
in a statementFriday.
“With these actions, we have taken one more step toward a
more just, more fair and more compassionate New York for all."
Huffington
Post
What my Pardon from
Governor Andrew Cuomo Means to Me
On Dec. 30, 2016 I received a call from Governor Andrew
Cuomo’s office informing me that I was justgranted
a pardon. My knees shook and arms got numb as the news sunk in. It
was the exact feeling I had in 1996 in Sing Sing prison when I was told by the
Deputy of Security that I wasgranted
executive clemency by then Governor George Pataki.But
now was different than then. Back then I was on the tail end of serving a15
to Lifesentence for
passing an envelope of 4 and a half ounces of cocaine to under-cover officers. I
was to make a fast 500 dollars for the delivery. Being desperate I wound up
doing a stupid thing to make some fast money. I not only ruined my life, I
ruined the life of my 7-year-old daughter Stephanie who until this day has never
recovered from the stigma generated from the crime that I committed.
When released I had to learn how to be free once again. I
had served twelve years in prison and five years on parole and lived in total
fear that I would violate my conditions of parole and be thrown back into
prison. I found out quickly that a simple walk in my crime infested South Bronx
neighborhood or a train ride in the NYC subway system could easily escalate into
a situation that would cause me to lose my freedom. Overwhelming joy and
happiness dominated my first few days’ home, but once these initial emotions
began to fade, I realized the freedom I fought so long and hard to win was not
what I imagined it to be. The way of life I once knew was gone, along with my
friends and most of my support base. I discovered I was alone in a new world
that had drastically changed without me.
Getting my life back on track was no easy matter
especially finding out that governmental road blocks existed at almost every
level of my re-entry. I searched for a solution to my problems and realized that
when my cell door was shut behind me, I did not leave behind those twelve years
of hard time. When those prison doors close behind you and you leave its
confines, you are not free. You are still doing time—just doing it on the other
side of the bars. I soon found out that prison life was deeply rooted into my
present existence; a decade of life in an environment where survival mechanisms
and behaviors were hardwired into daily existence had changed me profoundly.
Being hard-wired for survival was a good thing. In the
free world, though, it was another matter, especially when these mechanisms
would surface suddenly and without warning. The tools that were once lifesaving
had become a tremendous burden as I tried to get my life back together. I had
survived the prison experience and made my way to freedom by creative
self-expression, painting, but I was soon to learn that freedom had its costs. I
talk about this in mynew
memoir “This Side of Freedom: Life after Clemency.For
many, including myself, carrying the stigma of being an ex-offender is often
debilitating. From being denied employment and housing, to not knowing how to
establish healthy relationships, life became exceedingly difficult.
With this pardon I become the first individual in New York
State to receiveclemency
and a pardonwhich helps
vindicate the draconian 15-to-life sentence I received as a fist time
non-violent offender. It indicates forgiveness of my crime from the government
because the punishment I received was not appropriate. It is also a public
proclamation that I have demonstrated exemplary behavior since being released
and it shows that people in prison can successfully re-enter society without
negative results. I pray that Governor Cuomo continues to show compassion for
those that deserve it and he continues to use his pardon power.
Wall Street Journal
Cuomo Pardons 101 New
Yorkers Convicted as Minors
New York’s governor also commutes the
sentences of seven, including the getaway driver in deadly 1981 robbery of a
Brink’s armored car
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo pardoned 101 New Yorkers who were convicted
when they were 16 or 17 years old, in what state officials said was part of an
effort to remove barriers to housing and employment for those who committed
crimes in their youth.
The pardons by Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, went only to those convicted of
nonviolent felonies or misdemeanors who have remained conviction-free for at
least 10 years, officials said. The pardons are conditional, meaning they can be
withdrawn if a person is convicted.
He also pardoned five people who had been convicted as adults and
commuted the sentences of seven still in prison.
Friday’s pardons are a notable departure from past years. In 2015, the
governor pardoned three people and commuted the sentences of three others, and
in 2014, he pardoned two. Alphonso David, the governor’s counsel, said those
pardoned who committed crimes as young people had demonstrated they had been
rehabilitated. “If you made a mistake at 16 or 17 you shouldn’t be affected by
that mistake at 40 years old,” he said.
The state plans to continue issuing such pardons in the coming years,
Mr. David said. State officials estimate 10,000 people fit the eligibility for
such pardons. This year, about 260 applied, Mr. David said.
Ruthie Epstein, deputy advocacy director of the New York Civil Liberties
Union, praised Friday’s pardons but said they are a stopgap measure for what she
views as the state’s harsh sentencing laws. New York is one of only two states
nationwide that treats 16- and 17-year-old offenders as adults, she said.
“It doesn’t rectify the underlying injustice that got them in prison in
the first place,” Ms. Epstein said.
One of those whose sentence was commuted was Judith Clark, 67 years old,
a political activist who was a member of the Weather Underground. She was
convicted in 1983 for driving the getaway vehicle in a 1981 Brink’s armored car
robbery, in Nanuet, N.Y., in which two police offers and a security guard were
killed. Ms. Clark has served 35 years of a 75 years-to-life sentence, state
officials said. Friday’s commutation makes her eligible to appear before the
state parole board.
State officials said Ms. Clark had “made exceptional strides in
self-development” while in prison. They said she had earned bachelor’s and
master’s degrees, founded an HIV/AIDS education program and trained service dogs
as part of the Puppies Behind Bars program.
Anthony Papa, who was pardoned Friday, was convicted of drug charges in
1985. While he has been out of prison since 1997, he said he views the pardon as
a vindication. It also removes some barriers that come with a criminal record,
he said.
“Every time I went for an apartment I was always terrified they would
find out and throw me in the street,” said Mr. Papa, 62 years old, an author and
artist who works at advocacy-group the Drug Policy Alliance.
FOX 5 reporter Jennifer Lahmers said "Anthony Papa is an example of how the
presidential pardoning system works well. In the mid 80s Papa was strapped for
cash and described doing what he said was the biggest mistake of his life--
agreeing to run an envelope with 4.5 oz of cocaine to someone he had never met.
It turns out that someone was a participant in an undercover police sting, Papa
was arrested and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. While at Sing-Sing he
earned 3 degrees and read as many books as he could. In 1997 he was pardoned by
Gov. Pataki and for the last 10 years has remained one of the state's biggest
advocates against mass incarceration. We sat down with him tonight as President
Obama made history by granting the greatest number of clemencies in a single day
by any US president."
Papa's new memoir "This Side of Freedom: Life after Clemency is available on
Amazon goo.gl/GfVQC7for more on
the war on drugs
www.drugpolicy.org to see Tony Papa's art go to his website
www.15tolife.com
WBAI
Radio Randy Credico interview 12/13/16/
goo.gl/OXEoA6 audio
Roger
Stone famous political advisor and #1 author on the NY Times bestselling list on
his new radio show "The Cold Stone Truth" interviewed Tony Papa says:
"This Side of Freedom is a terrific piece of work. I am very
excited about it and wish everyone can read it!"
Anthony “Tony” Papa once spent 12 years behind bars for a small crime he
committed in a time of weakness. He did so to come up on “some easy money,“ and
readily admits it was one of the worst mistakes he’s ever made. He now spends
every waking hour of his life as an activist against mandatory drug sentencing
laws, with a concentration on educating ex-cons so they have a better chance of
never landing in trouble again while they’re free — like so many of them often
do.
And much like millions of others in America, he’s worried about the future of
the country.
“We have to look at the reality of the situation,” Papa says of the election
results. “This whole Trump thing took everyone by surprise, so now we just gotta
deal with it.”
He says he and the
Drug Policy Alliance (where he’s worked for over a decade now) have made
tremendous strides in the fight against mandatory sentencing for non-violent
offenders. It hasn’t exactly been easy doing so during the past two terms with
Barrack Obama in office, but could grow even more difficult with the newly
chosen sheriff in town.
That’s because President-elect Donald Trump has named a few worrisome men to
fill key positions in his administration. One scares Papa the most. His name is
Jeff Sessions, and he’s likely to become America’s next Attorney General. He’s
also about the worst possible choice for anyone in the position of fighting for
equal rights and lightening the load on non-violent drug offenders.
However, it’s a fight that Papa and his team plan on continuing, even in the
face of extreme complications.
“We’re trying to rally the troops,” he explains. “We’re getting everybody we
can in all realms of activism, of civil rights, against the drug war, and speak
out and get everybody to rally to stop this guy from becoming the Attorney
General.”
Bill Piper, senior director of the Drug Policy Alliance’s office of National
Affairs in Washington D.C., agrees with Papa’s feelings toward Sessions. In a
recent media teleconference, he points out the devastating effects a
Sessions ran office could have on already structured policies helping battle the
war on drugs.
“[Sessions] recently described marijuana as a dangerous drug, said ‘good
people don’t smoke marijuana,’ and has criticized the Obama administration for
respecting state marijuana laws,” he said. “If confirmed as U.S. Attorney
General, Jeff Sessions could escalate the failed war on drugs. He will
likely use his position to oppose any kind of sentencing or criminal justice
reform. He could undo the important changes Eric Holder made including expanding
the use of mandatory minimum sentencing and reversing course on important
consent decrees.”
He scares many, but at this point, the fears all surround only speculation on
what these men can and can not do with their positions. It won’t be until
January, when all members are sworn in and given the keys to their respective
offices, that the country will finally be able to feel the temperature of the
pot it's gotten itself into.
Even still, Papa at least remains hopeful that a Trump administration would
have little impact on the gray area that forever haunts the cannabis industry.
He says it’s too locked into our culture right now for him to be able to do
anything — at least that’s what he’s betting on anyway.
“Trump’s a businessman,” he says. “It’s so far into the American lifestyle. I
mean, 7 more states voted it in. You’ll have a civil war if he tries to pull it
back. So many people and businesses are in it.”
He’s just going to continue on with his many projects he’s working on right
now, such as the
Prison Letter Project (of which he says he has thousands of messages from
prisoners telling their own stories about the failed justice system), and
expanding his Prison Library Project after receiving a substantial grant to
continue teaching men and women how to survive in a world built for them to
fail.
“I’m trying to reduce massive incarceration by education, by educating
prisoners before they come out, to prepare them and thus reducing recidivism,”
he says. “That’s my attempt to reduce mass incarceration.”
He’s also altering his title at the DPA by incorporating art into the fight
against injustice — something he learned while locked up himself.
“It’s a hard sell,” he admits, “but you know what, I’m doing it.”
Create. Educate. Fight. It’s all anyone can do at this point, says Papa.
- See more at: http://www.therooster.com/blog/former-prisoner-explains-%E2%80%98what-now%E2%80%99-america#sthash.u2gz68cn.dpuf
A former prisoner explains ‘what now’ for America
VicesNovember
29, 2016By Brian Frederick
Anthony “Tony” Papa once spent 12 years behind bars for a small crime he
committed in a time of weakness. He did so to come up on “some easy money,“
and readily admits it was one of the worst mistakes he’s ever made. He now
spends every waking hour of his life as an activist against mandatory drug
sentencing laws, with a concentration on educating ex-cons so they have a
better chance of never landing in trouble again while they’re free — like so
many of them often do.
And much like millions of others in America, he’s worried about the
future of the country.
“We have to look at the reality of the situation,” Papa says of the
election results. “This whole Trump thing took everyone by surprise, so now
we just gotta deal with it.”
He says he and the
Drug Policy Alliance (where he’s worked for over a decade now) have made
tremendous strides in the fight against mandatory sentencing for non-violent
offenders. It hasn’t exactly been easy doing so during the past two terms
with Barrack Obama in office, but could grow even more difficult with the
newly chosen sheriff in town.
That’s because President-elect Donald Trump has named a few worrisome men
to fill key positions in his administration. One scares Papa the most. His
name is Jeff Sessions, and he’s likely to become America’s next Attorney
General. He’s also about the worst possible choice for anyone in the
position of fighting for equal rights and lightening the load on non-violent
drug offenders.
However, it’s a fight that Papa and his team plan on continuing, even in
the face of extreme complications.
“We’re trying to rally the troops,” he explains. “We’re getting everybody
we can in all realms of activism, of civil rights, against the drug war, and
speak out and get everybody to rally to stop this guy from becoming the
Attorney General.”
Bill Piper, senior director of the Drug Policy Alliance’s office of
National Affairs in Washington D.C., agrees with Papa’s feelings toward
Sessions. In a
recent media teleconference, he points out the devastating effects a
Sessions ran office could have on already structured policies helping battle
the war on drugs.
“[Sessions] recently described marijuana as a dangerous drug, said ‘good
people don’t smoke marijuana,’ and has criticized the Obama administration
for respecting state marijuana laws,” he said. “If confirmed as U.S.
Attorney General, Jeff Sessions could escalate the failed war on
drugs. He will likely use his position to oppose any kind of sentencing or
criminal justice reform. He could undo the important changes Eric Holder
made including expanding the use of mandatory minimum sentencing and
reversing course on important consent decrees.”
He scares many, but at this point, the fears all surround only
speculation on what these men can and can not do with their positions. It
won’t be until January, when all members are sworn in and given the keys to
their respective offices, that the country will finally be able to feel the
temperature of the pot it's gotten itself into.
Even still, Papa at least remains hopeful that a Trump administration
would have little impact on the gray area that forever haunts the cannabis
industry. He says it’s too locked into our culture right now for him to be
able to do anything — at least that’s what he’s betting on anyway.
“Trump’s a businessman,” he says. “It’s so far into the American
lifestyle. I mean, 7 more states voted it in. You’ll have a civil war if he
tries to pull it back. So many people and businesses are in it.”
He’s just going to continue on with his many projects he’s working on
right now, such as the
Prison Letter Project
(of which he says he has thousands of messages from prisoners telling their
own stories about the failed justice system), and expanding his Prison
Library Project after receiving a substantial grant to continue teaching men
and women how to survive in a world built for them to fail.
“I’m trying to reduce massive incarceration by education, by educating
prisoners before they come out, to prepare them and thus reducing
recidivism,” he says. “That’s my attempt to reduce mass incarceration.”
He’s also altering his title at the DPA by incorporating art into the
fight against injustice — something he learned while locked up himself.
“It’s a hard sell,” he admits, “but you know what, I’m doing it.”
Create. Educate. Fight. It’s all anyone can do at this point, says Papa.
- See more at: http://www.therooster.com/blog/former-prisoner-explains-%E2%80%98what-now%E2%80%99-america#sthash.u2gz68cn.dpuf
A former prisoner explains ‘what now’ for America
VicesNovember
29, 2016By Brian Frederick
Anthony “Tony” Papa once spent 12 years behind bars for a small crime he
committed in a time of weakness. He did so to come up on “some easy money,“
and readily admits it was one of the worst mistakes he’s ever made. He now
spends every waking hour of his life as an activist against mandatory drug
sentencing laws, with a concentration on educating ex-cons so they have a
better chance of never landing in trouble again while they’re free — like so
many of them often do.
And much like millions of others in America, he’s worried about the
future of the country.
“We have to look at the reality of the situation,” Papa says of the
election results. “This whole Trump thing took everyone by surprise, so now
we just gotta deal with it.”
He says he and the
Drug Policy Alliance (where he’s worked for over a decade now) have made
tremendous strides in the fight against mandatory sentencing for non-violent
offenders. It hasn’t exactly been easy doing so during the past two terms
with Barrack Obama in office, but could grow even more difficult with the
newly chosen sheriff in town.
That’s because President-elect Donald Trump has named a few worrisome men
to fill key positions in his administration. One scares Papa the most. His
name is Jeff Sessions, and he’s likely to become America’s next Attorney
General. He’s also about the worst possible choice for anyone in the
position of fighting for equal rights and lightening the load on non-violent
drug offenders.
However, it’s a fight that Papa and his team plan on continuing, even in
the face of extreme complications.
“We’re trying to rally the troops,” he explains. “We’re getting everybody
we can in all realms of activism, of civil rights, against the drug war, and
speak out and get everybody to rally to stop this guy from becoming the
Attorney General.”
Bill Piper, senior director of the Drug Policy Alliance’s office of
National Affairs in Washington D.C., agrees with Papa’s feelings toward
Sessions. In a
recent media teleconference, he points out the devastating effects a
Sessions ran office could have on already structured policies helping battle
the war on drugs.
“[Sessions] recently described marijuana as a dangerous drug, said ‘good
people don’t smoke marijuana,’ and has criticized the Obama administration
for respecting state marijuana laws,” he said. “If confirmed as U.S.
Attorney General, Jeff Sessions could escalate the failed war on
drugs. He will likely use his position to oppose any kind of sentencing or
criminal justice reform. He could undo the important changes Eric Holder
made including expanding the use of mandatory minimum sentencing and
reversing course on important consent decrees.”
He scares many, but at this point, the fears all surround only
speculation on what these men can and can not do with their positions. It
won’t be until January, when all members are sworn in and given the keys to
their respective offices, that the country will finally be able to feel the
temperature of the pot it's gotten itself into.
Even still, Papa at least remains hopeful that a Trump administration
would have little impact on the gray area that forever haunts the cannabis
industry. He says it’s too locked into our culture right now for him to be
able to do anything — at least that’s what he’s betting on anyway.
“Trump’s a businessman,” he says. “It’s so far into the American
lifestyle. I mean, 7 more states voted it in. You’ll have a civil war if he
tries to pull it back. So many people and businesses are in it.”
He’s just going to continue on with his many projects he’s working on
right now, such as the
Prison Letter Project
(of which he says he has thousands of messages from prisoners telling their
own stories about the failed justice system), and expanding his Prison
Library Project after receiving a substantial grant to continue teaching men
and women how to survive in a world built for them to fail.
“I’m trying to reduce massive incarceration by education, by educating
prisoners before they come out, to prepare them and thus reducing
recidivism,” he says. “That’s my attempt to reduce mass incarceration.”
He’s also altering his title at the DPA by incorporating art into the
fight against injustice — something he learned while locked up himself.
“It’s a hard sell,” he admits, “but you know what, I’m doing it.”
Create. Educate. Fight. It’s all anyone can do at this point, says Papa.
- See more at: http://www.therooster.com/blog/former-prisoner-explains-%E2%80%98what-now%E2%80%99-america#sthash.u2gz68cn.dpuf
A former prisoner explains ‘what now’ for America
VicesNovember
29, 2016By Brian Frederick
Anthony “Tony” Papa once spent 12 years behind bars for a small crime he
committed in a time of weakness. He did so to come up on “some easy money,“
and readily admits it was one of the worst mistakes he’s ever made. He now
spends every waking hour of his life as an activist against mandatory drug
sentencing laws, with a concentration on educating ex-cons so they have a
better chance of never landing in trouble again while they’re free — like so
many of them often do.
And much like millions of others in America, he’s worried about the
future of the country.
“We have to look at the reality of the situation,” Papa says of the
election results. “This whole Trump thing took everyone by surprise, so now
we just gotta deal with it.”
He says he and the
Drug Policy Alliance (where he’s worked for over a decade now) have made
tremendous strides in the fight against mandatory sentencing for non-violent
offenders. It hasn’t exactly been easy doing so during the past two terms
with Barrack Obama in office, but could grow even more difficult with the
newly chosen sheriff in town.
That’s because President-elect Donald Trump has named a few worrisome men
to fill key positions in his administration. One scares Papa the most. His
name is Jeff Sessions, and he’s likely to become America’s next Attorney
General. He’s also about the worst possible choice for anyone in the
position of fighting for equal rights and lightening the load on non-violent
drug offenders.
However, it’s a fight that Papa and his team plan on continuing, even in
the face of extreme complications.
“We’re trying to rally the troops,” he explains. “We’re getting everybody
we can in all realms of activism, of civil rights, against the drug war, and
speak out and get everybody to rally to stop this guy from becoming the
Attorney General.”
Bill Piper, senior director of the Drug Policy Alliance’s office of
National Affairs in Washington D.C., agrees with Papa’s feelings toward
Sessions. In a
recent media teleconference, he points out the devastating effects a
Sessions ran office could have on already structured policies helping battle
the war on drugs.
“[Sessions] recently described marijuana as a dangerous drug, said ‘good
people don’t smoke marijuana,’ and has criticized the Obama administration
for respecting state marijuana laws,” he said. “If confirmed as U.S.
Attorney General, Jeff Sessions could escalate the failed war on
drugs. He will likely use his position to oppose any kind of sentencing or
criminal justice reform. He could undo the important changes Eric Holder
made including expanding the use of mandatory minimum sentencing and
reversing course on important consent decrees.”
He scares many, but at this point, the fears all surround only
speculation on what these men can and can not do with their positions. It
won’t be until January, when all members are sworn in and given the keys to
their respective offices, that the country will finally be able to feel the
temperature of the pot it's gotten itself into.
Even still, Papa at least remains hopeful that a Trump administration
would have little impact on the gray area that forever haunts the cannabis
industry. He says it’s too locked into our culture right now for him to be
able to do anything — at least that’s what he’s betting on anyway.
“Trump’s a businessman,” he says. “It’s so far into the American
lifestyle. I mean, 7 more states voted it in. You’ll have a civil war if he
tries to pull it back. So many people and businesses are in it.”
He’s just going to continue on with his many projects he’s working on
right now, such as the
Prison Letter Project
(of which he says he has thousands of messages from prisoners telling their
own stories about the failed justice system), and expanding his Prison
Library Project after receiving a substantial grant to continue teaching men
and women how to survive in a world built for them to fail.
“I’m trying to reduce massive incarceration by education, by educating
prisoners before they come out, to prepare them and thus reducing
recidivism,” he says. “That’s my attempt to reduce mass incarceration.”
He’s also altering his title at the DPA by incorporating art into the
fight against injustice — something he learned while locked up himself.
“It’s a hard sell,” he admits, “but you know what, I’m doing it.”
Create. Educate. Fight. It’s all anyone can do at this point, says Papa.
- See more at: http://www.therooster.com/blog/former-prisoner-explains-%E2%80%98what-now%E2%80%99-america#sthash.u2gz68cn.dpuf
A former prisoner explains ‘what now’ for America
VicesNovember
29, 2016By Brian Frederick
Anthony “Tony” Papa once spent 12 years behind bars for a small crime he
committed in a time of weakness. He did so to come up on “some easy money,“
and readily admits it was one of the worst mistakes he’s ever made. He now
spends every waking hour of his life as an activist against mandatory drug
sentencing laws, with a concentration on educating ex-cons so they have a
better chance of never landing in trouble again while they’re free — like so
many of them often do.
And much like millions of others in America, he’s worried about the
future of the country.
“We have to look at the reality of the situation,” Papa says of the
election results. “This whole Trump thing took everyone by surprise, so now
we just gotta deal with it.”
He says he and the
Drug Policy Alliance (where he’s worked for over a decade now) have made
tremendous strides in the fight against mandatory sentencing for non-violent
offenders. It hasn’t exactly been easy doing so during the past two terms
with Barrack Obama in office, but could grow even more difficult with the
newly chosen sheriff in town.
That’s because President-elect Donald Trump has named a few worrisome men
to fill key positions in his administration. One scares Papa the most. His
name is Jeff Sessions, and he’s likely to become America’s next Attorney
General. He’s also about the worst possible choice for anyone in the
position of fighting for equal rights and lightening the load on non-violent
drug offenders.
However, it’s a fight that Papa and his team plan on continuing, even in
the face of extreme complications.
“We’re trying to rally the troops,” he explains. “We’re getting everybody
we can in all realms of activism, of civil rights, against the drug war, and
speak out and get everybody to rally to stop this guy from becoming the
Attorney General.”
Bill Piper, senior director of the Drug Policy Alliance’s office of
National Affairs in Washington D.C., agrees with Papa’s feelings toward
Sessions. In a
recent media teleconference, he points out the devastating effects a
Sessions ran office could have on already structured policies helping battle
the war on drugs.
“[Sessions] recently described marijuana as a dangerous drug, said ‘good
people don’t smoke marijuana,’ and has criticized the Obama administration
for respecting state marijuana laws,” he said. “If confirmed as U.S.
Attorney General, Jeff Sessions could escalate the failed war on
drugs. He will likely use his position to oppose any kind of sentencing or
criminal justice reform. He could undo the important changes Eric Holder
made including expanding the use of mandatory minimum sentencing and
reversing course on important consent decrees.”
He scares many, but at this point, the fears all surround only
speculation on what these men can and can not do with their positions. It
won’t be until January, when all members are sworn in and given the keys to
their respective offices, that the country will finally be able to feel the
temperature of the pot it's gotten itself into.
Even still, Papa at least remains hopeful that a Trump administration
would have little impact on the gray area that forever haunts the cannabis
industry. He says it’s too locked into our culture right now for him to be
able to do anything — at least that’s what he’s betting on anyway.
“Trump’s a businessman,” he says. “It’s so far into the American
lifestyle. I mean, 7 more states voted it in. You’ll have a civil war if he
tries to pull it back. So many people and businesses are in it.”
He’s just going to continue on with his many projects he’s working on
right now, such as the
Prison Letter Project
(of which he says he has thousands of messages from prisoners telling their
own stories about the failed justice system), and expanding his Prison
Library Project after receiving a substantial grant to continue teaching men
and women how to survive in a world built for them to fail.
“I’m trying to reduce massive incarceration by education, by educating
prisoners before they come out, to prepare them and thus reducing
recidivism,” he says. “That’s my attempt to reduce mass incarceration.”
He’s also altering his title at the DPA by incorporating art into the
fight against injustice — something he learned while locked up himself.
“It’s a hard sell,” he admits, “but you know what, I’m doing it.”
Create. Educate. Fight. It’s all anyone can do at this point, says Papa.
- See more at: http://www.therooster.com/blog/former-prisoner-explains-%E2%80%98what-now%E2%80%99-america#sthash.u2gz68cn.dpuf
For Immediate
Release:
Contact: Tony Newman 646-335-5384
May 23, 2016
Anthony Papa 646-420-7290
Wednesday Event: Anti-Drug War Activist Anthony
Papa Releases His New Book “This
Side of Freedom: Life After Clemency”
Papa’s Timely New Memoir Addresses the Drug War,
Mass Incarceration and Reentry Issues as President Obama and Congress Seek
Criminal Justice Reform
Book Release Event Coincides with Celebration of
Papa’s 10-Year Anniversary at the Drug Policy Alliance
Anthony Papa will release his new book,
This Side of Freedom: Life After Clemency at the New York office of the
Drug Policy Alliance (131 W. 33rd Street) on May 25th 2016.
This Side of Freedom: Life After Clemency is a riveting, compelling
tale about the life of activist, writer and artist Anthony Papa. He tells
firsthand of his experience of returning home after serving 12 years of a
15-to-life sentence for a non-violent drug law violation, sentenced under the
mandatory provisions of the Rockefeller Drug Laws of New York State. While
behind bars, Papa found his passion for art and
his haunting self-portrait “15 to Life” ended up showing in the Whitney
Museum. Papa used his art and personal story to generate a wave of media
attention and in 1997 he was granted executive clemency by New York Governor
George Pataki. Papa literally painted his way to freedom.
Papa says that the freedom he fought so hard to get
smacked him swiftly in the face, overpowering him. He struggled with his own
freedom while fighting to free those he left behind. Papa goes through
heart-wrenching trials and tribulations as he seeks to rebuild his life and
continue his fight to end the war on drugs. Along the way he meets an array of
individuals from famous movie stars to politicians and the very rich, enlisting
their help in doing away with mass incarceration and draconian sentencing laws
that have destroyed America's criminal justice system.
Papa’s book launch event will coincide with a
celebration for his 10-year anniversary at the Drug Policy Alliance, where he is
manager of media and artist relations. His stinging editorials about the drug
war have appeared in news sources across the country and world. He is a frequent
public speaker and college lecturer on his art and criminal justice issues.
In addition to his new memoir, Papa is also author of “15
to Life: How I Painted My Way to Freedom” (2004) a memoir about his
experience of being sentenced to state prison for a first-time, nonviolent drug
offense under New York's draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws. He has been
interviewed by a wide range of national print and broadcast media, including The
New York Times, The Washington Post, The Nation, National Public Radio,
Democracy Now, and Court TV, among others. He has appeared on nationally
syndicated talk shows such as MSNBC's "Melissa Harris Perry", CNN's "Your
Money," Charles Grodin, Geraldo Rivera, and Catherine Crier Live. Papa's art has
been exhibited widely, from the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York to
many smaller cultural centers around the country. Papa has worked to end the war
on drugs through many mediums, including as an artist, writer, co-founder of
Mothers of the New York Disappeared and his ten years at the Drug Policy
Alliance.
Advance praise for This Side of Freedom: "Anthony Papa's work,
beginning with his incredible paintings, continuing with his ground-breaking
memoir, “15 to Life,” and now this new offering, “This Side of Freedom,” is
almost single-handedly documenting one of the greatest civil and human rights
disruptions in our nation's history: the human destruction caused by the war on
drugs policies. Papa brings us, in living color and painful authenticity, what
these gross violations of human rights do to the spirit, but more, how the
spirit can still soar despite mountains of adversity. His is truly on a hero's
journey and one we should all take with him," said, asha bandele, author of
“The Prisoner's Wife.”
We
cover a lot of ground, yet again, on today's
BradCast.
First: More climate change dots
connected out here in California, as another freeway is shut down
(the third in the last couple of months) thanks to yet another extreme
weather
disaster.
Next: As Donald Trump
correctly notes that George W. Bush did not "keep us safe" either
before or after 9/11, Jeb tries again to come to his brother's defense
and fails almost as much as his own campaign is now
floundering.
Papa (self-portrait seen above in today's BradCast logo)
shares his amazing story about how he was sentenced to "15
years to life" for a first-time, non-violent, drug-related crime
under New York's "tough on crime", "war on drugs" policies of the 80s.
He served 12 years of hard time --- for delivering 4 ounces of cocaine
in exchange for $500 --- before he was finally granted clemency by the
Governor.
Papa was lucky enough to earn three degrees while serving 12 years in
prison, where he also
discovered he knows how to paint. He now serves as Artist in
Residence at Drug Policy Alliance and has had his work exhibited at the
Whitney Museum. On today's show, in addition to his personal story, he
shared his optimistic thoughts on criminal justice reform ("mandatory
minimum sentencing became the poison that literally broke the system"),
some
words of advice to those about to be released ("these men and women
coming home into a society that is not ready for them, can be a
problem"), and his opinions on the outrage of restrictions on voting
placed on both current and former felons.
"The greatest thing for me being in prison, was my discovery for me
of my political awareness," he tells me. But, after his release, he
learned he would still not be able to vote for another five years, even
though he had served his time under laws passed by officials he should
have been able to vote against. "Before I went to prison, I didn't even
bother to vote. I was a regular Joe. When I came out, discovering I
couldn't vote was very painful for me. So it took five years, but when
the time came, I cast that vote. I felt like I was whole again. It was a
wonderful feeling."
Finally today: Wayne Simmons, the "former CIA operative"
regularly featured on Fox "News" for more than a decade, where he has
been cited by wingnuts time and again on everything from
Benghazi to
torture to
ISIS and their "19 paramilitary Muslim training facilities in the
United States" (which don't exist), turns out to have never worked for
the CIA at all and has now been
arrested on federal fraud charges.
Download MP3 or listen to complete show online below...
Leading the Way to Repeal of the
Rockefeller Drug Laws! On this page you can read the history of the movement
from 2002. Start at the bottom of the page.
Did you know that
the 2 watered down changes in the Rockefeller laws of 2004/5 has equated
to 576
prisoners* set free of the 1,000 prisoners that were eligible
Today a new report by Human Rights Watch
titled “An
Offer You Can’t Refuse” revealed that
only three percent of U.S. drug defendants in federal cases chose to go to
trial instead of pleading guilty in 2012. The report explains that the
reason only three percent go to trial is because prosecutors warn defendants
that if they refuse the plea and go to trial, they will be charged with a
more series crime and end up with a much longer sentence.
Prosecutors live and die for convictions and they use mandatory minimum
sentencing as a prosecutorial tool to secure
convictions and get people to plead guilty without getting their right
to a fair trial.
People’s fear of angering prosecutors by going to trial is real. The
reports shows that defendants who chose to exercise their constitutional
rights to go to trial routinely face sentences three times greater than the
original plea deals. This is an astounding revelation.
I know the pressure to take a deal and the disatroious consequences of
taking my case to trial. In 1985 I refused a plea deal of three years and
end up being sentenced to 15 years to life under
the mandatory provisions of New York’s Rockefeller Drug Laws.
I was duped into delivering an envelope containing four ounces of cocaine
for $500 by a bowling buddy. During the criminal proceedings the district
attorney’s office discovered I was not a drug dealer but nevertheless, they
wanted to secure a conviction.
During the trial the assistant district attorney approached me and asked
how old my daughter was. I told him she was seven years old. He told me if I
chose to go to trial the next time I would see my daughter was when she was
22, take the plea offer of three years to life because you will never win. I
was afraid of being away from my wife and daughter for three years. I
refused the offer and a few days later I was convicted and sentenced to 15
years to life. I could not believe it.
Not taking the plea deal of three years to life was the biggest mistake
of my life. Because I refused the offer I was sentenced to more than five
times the amount of time I was offered in the plea bargain. During my years
of imprisonment I tried to commit suicide, I was stuck with a knife, and I
was beat down with a pipe.
But nothing hurt me more than my separation from my daughter, Stephanie.
Her child-like innocence gave me the will to live when I wanted to die.
Although I tried to keep a relationship with her, she suffered greatly
from my prison sentence. No child should have experienced the horrible
conditions she had to go through, such as body searches, long waiting lines
and abusive correction officers.
Little by little, her beautiful child-like demeanor disappeared, and was
replaced with a sadness and depression generally seen in a much older
person. By the time she was 12, she had become psychologically damaged, and
so traumatized by the prison experience that she could no longer visit me.
From my relationship with my daughter I learned that prison did not end
at the wall that separated me from society. It went far beyond it, reaching
loved ones and friends of those incarcerated. When I refused the plea offer
my life changed forever.
I commend Human Rights Watch for exposing how prosecutors
get drug defendants to accept plea bargains by charging them with
extraordinary long sentences under mandatory minimums. It is time to end
harsh mandatory
minimums that both destroy lives and may a mockery of our “justice”
system.
The National Thanksgiving Turkey
Presentation, a ceremony at the White House, is where the president of
the United States pardons a turkey and sets it free instead of
slaughtering it and making it someone's Thanksgiving dinner.
As someone who has been called a turkey on more than one occasion,
and who was granted executive clemency stemming from a drug conviction,
I have found a spiritual connection to the subject of the turkey pardon.
In 1985, I was arrested when I got caught up in a drug sting. I
delivered four ounces of cocaine from the Bronx to Mount Vernon, New
York. Twenty cops came out of nowhere and I was placed under arrest. I
did everything I could do wrong and was sentenced to 15 years to life
under the Rockefeller Drug Laws on New York State.
I was set free in 1997 after serving 12
years.
I support and applaud President Obama's treatment of turkeys. But I
have to ask the president: what about the treatment of the more than
100,000 people who are incarcerated in the federal system because of the
war on drugs?
Surely some of these non-violent drug offenders deserve treatment
equal to a turkey pardon? I would think so. But if you look at Obama's
record on the use of executive clemency which includes pardons and
commutation of sentences, you would have to say that he has more respect
for turkeys than drug war offenders. President Obama has
granted only
39 pardons so far, which ranks him at the bottom of the pile in
presidents who have exercised this power.
A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of hearing a speech that Attorney
General Eric Holder gave calling for criminal justice reforms which
would ease certain drug sentences. It was nice to hear. But knowing how
the criminal justice system works, I had my doubts on what effects it
would have on prisoners who were serving long drug sentences and who
were not eligible for judicial relief under the proposed changes
suggested by Holder.
In particular, I pointed out the 5,000 or so prisoners who didn't get
judicial relief under the changes Obama signed into law under the
Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. I asked President Obama at that time to use
his presidential authority to pardon and, in particular, commute the
sentences of people who were charged under the old 100-to-one crack to
powder cocaine ratio. It would be a great move by President Obama. With
a swipe of his pen, the president could give a chance to those
nonviolent drug offenders who are stuck in prison, and help them return
to their families.
Many of us are praying that President Obama will show the same
compassion he has for the turkey he will pardon this week and use that
same compassion for those drug offenders who have fallen through the
cracks of drug law reform who are ready to return to society.
PUBLISHED: 14:00 EST, 2
October 2013 | UPDATED:
14:05 EST, 2 October 2013
He memorably used his Emmy winning speech last
month to lament the U.S. prison system for not allowing him to visit his
incarcerated son Cameron in jail.
And Michael Douglas has now received support
in his quest from non profit organisation the Drug Policy Alliance who have a
launched a petition urging Attorney General Eric Holder to change his tough
stance on non-violent drug offenders.
The petition, posted by Alliance activist Tony
Papa on Change.Orgis trying to pressure Holder and
Cameron's prison warden John Caraway to allow families like the Douglases to see
their loved ones in prison.
Petition: Tony Papa from the Drug Policy Alliance has
launched a petition urging the Attorney General to allow Michael Douglas to see
his son Cameron in prison
Cameron, the only child of Michael and his
first wife Diandra, was convicted in 2010 of selling methamphetamine and
possession of heroin. A year later, his sentence was increased by Judge Richard
Berman when he failed a drug test and pleaded guilty to possessing drugs in
prison.
The 34-year-old is currently in incarcerated
at the Federal Corrections Institute in Cumberland, Maryland.
'Cameron is currently serving nine and a half
years of hard time for a nonviolent drug conviction and is being punished
because of his drug addiction,' Papa writes in his post.
'District Court Judge Berman whacked Cameron
with additional time for what is essentially Cameron's bad drug habit,' he adds.
Imploring: Michael Douglas gave a shout out to his son
Cameron in his Emmy speech last month
Michael brought attention to Cameron's plight
after winning won the award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Movie of Miniseries
for his role as Liberace in Behind The Candelabra.
'A shout-out to my oldest son Cameron, but
hopefully I'll be able to see him soon,' he said in his speech.
The 69-year-old actor further explained his
comments in a post-awards press conference.
'[Cameron] has spent almost two years in
solitary confinement,' Michael said. 'Right now I’ve been told that I can’t see
him for two years. It’s been over a year now.
'I'm questioning the system. At first I was
certainly disappointed with my son, but I've reached a point now where I'm
disappointed with the system.'
Papa, an advocate for Cameron, agrees -
telling Radar: 'Every father should be able to see his imprisoned son. At first,
Michael blamed his son for the mess he got into, but now, he is questioning the
Bureau of Prisons and asking why he is being prevented from visiting his son for
two years.
'Prison does not end at the prison wall… It
severely affects the family members and loved ones of those who are
incarcerated. Michael Douglas is being punished for his son’s drug addiction.'
Papa's post goes on to relay how the Alliance
helped Cameron appeal the near-doubling of his sentence as 'excessive and
unjust,' presenting a brief which argued that addiction treatment rather than
jail time would be more helpful to him.
Harsh sentence: Cameron is still not allowed to have
any visitors as part of his punishment, pictured with his father in LA in 2009
'In that brief, experts contended that
Cameron’s drug relapse behind bars was not surprising, noting the lack of
adequate drug treatment in the nation's prisons and jails, particularly for
opioid-dependent persons,' writes Papa.
'They urged corrections officials to remedy
this situation as a critical step to breaking the cycle of addiction that
affects the great majority of people incarcerated in the U.S.'
Cameron's appeal was denied and he was taken
into solitary confinement with 'many privileges taken away, including phone
calls and visits with family,' adds Papa, bemoaning the government's policy of
'locking up inmates with drug addictions rather than giving them treatment.'
He continues: 'Hopefully Michael Douglas will
be able to visit his son and the issue of punitive punishment such as this will
change and individuals with similar circumstances will be provided relief.'
Cameron's mother Diandra has also questioned
her son's treatment in prison, claiming to TMZthat he was 'treated like an animal'
while in solitary confinement, and that she too wants to visit him.
Diandra told TMZ that when Cameron left
solitary he had to stay out the sun because his skin would burn after he had
spent so long underground.
She said his hair was also falling out as a
result of his poor treatment.
Cameron himself has also spoken out against
the policy, calling the system 'outdated' on a blog on the Huffington Post.
'This outdated system pays little, if any,
concern to the disease of addiction, and instead punishes it more harshly than
many violent crimes,' he wrote. 'And even more exasperating is that many of the
people responsible for this tragedy disregard documented medical research and
the reality of our country's unsustainable prison overpopulation.
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing and Potential Pardons by President Obama
By Anthony Papa,Manager, Media Relations,
Drug Policy Alliance
Posted: 08/26/2013 4:27 pm
Last week I listened with great interest to a speech Attorney General Eric
Holder presented in front of the American Bar Association. Holder passionately
spoke about halting the use of laws that have led to mass incarceration, which
in turn, has broken the federal prison system. There are over
2.3 million incarcerated with about 500,00 drug offenders. The speech came
after an interview with
National Public Radio the week before saying that there had been a lot of
unintended consequences in the war on drugs which included the decimation of
communities of color.
What caught my attention most was his call for major federal sentencing
changes, including dropping the use of mandatory minimum sentencing in certain
drug cases. I've always had an interest in the subject of mandatory minimum
sentencing laws because of the
15-to-Life sentence I had served under the Rockefeller Drug Laws of New York
State. Even though I was a first time non-violent offender who delivered four
ounces of cocaine for the sum of $500 dollars, the judge in my case was forced
to impose a life sentence because of mandatory minimums. These laws had the
distinction of being the precursor to the current federal mandatory minimums
that Holder held responsible for breaking our criminal justice system.
Because of the media's focus on Holder's speech highlighting mandatory
minimum sentencing it was a busy week for media coverage. Last Monday, the
Associated Press released a video about Attorney General Eric Holder
speaking about the proposed reforms and on Tuesday I was invited to appear on
CNN's Your Money hosted by Christine Roman. The show was titled
"Broken Justice" and was co-hosted by Ashleigh Banfield of CNN's Legal View.
The host of the show used my case to point out the injustice of mandatory
minimum sentencing laws that Attorney General Eric Holder highlighted in his
speech.
And there's the question of pardons. Anthony Papa, media
manager of the Drug Policy Alliance, who was imprisoned 12 years under New York
State's Rockefeller drug laws before receiving clemency, says it isn't clear
what the administration's new policy will mean for people now behind bars. His
proposal: "Obama should use his presidential authority to pardon and, in
particular, commute the sentences of people who were charged under the old
100-to-one crack to powder cocaine ratio. Society would be better served by not
locking up people for extraordinarily long sentences for nonviolent, low-level
drug offenses. It's a waste of tax dollars and human lives."
There are about
5,000 prisoners who did not receive judicial relief under the Fair
Sentencing Act of 2010 which President Obama signed into law because the law was
not applied retroactively. The revised law reduced the disparity between the
amount of powder and crack cocaine needed to activate criminal penalties from a
100:1 weight ratio to an 18:1 weight ratio and eliminated the five-year
mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine. With a swipe
of his pen, President Obama could give a chance to those who are stuck in prison
and help them return to their families. I pray that he shows some compassion for
those who are worthy and ready to return to society. It would be the right thing
to do.
It isn't clear what the administration's new policy on drug sentencing will
mean for people currently behind bars.
President Obama should use his authority to commute the sentences of the
roughly 5,000 people who were charged under the old 100-to-1 crack-to-powder
cocaine ratio who are not eligible for relief.
Society would be better served by not locking up people with extraordinarily
long sentences for nonviolent drug offenses.
I know because I was sentenced to 15-to-life under mandatory sentencing laws.
I wound up serving 12 years because I received clemency from the governor of New
York. It was a waste of human life and tax dollars that could have been used for
needy communities.
Anthony Papa
New York
The writer is the media relations manager for the Drug Policy Alliance.
Flash! 8/12/13
Major changes in federal drug law sentencing announced by Attorney General Eric
Holder
Anthony Papa was in debt and desperate for cash when he
accepted an offer, from a bowling buddy, to get involved in a drug deal. In
exchange for $500, the father-of-one was to deliver an envelope containing four
ounces of cocaine from the Bronx to Mount Vernon, New York.
Papa delivered it into the hands of undercover police. Despite being a
first-time, non-violent offender with no wider connection to any gangs or
cartels, the radio repair man was sentenced to 15 years to life in New York's
Sing Sing prison. His buddy, a lynchpin who organised the deal, was given three
years to life.
Under
Eric Holder's long-awaited
overhaul of federal prison policy, unveiled on Monday, offenders like Papa
will no longer be subjected to mandatory minimum sentencing, which the attorney
general has said is unfair.
It is too late for Papa, who served 12 of his 15 years in state prison before
being granted clemency. But as an advocate for state and federal reforms for the
Drug Policy Alliance, he welcomed Holder's overhaul. Among the changes Holder
announced is new guidance to federal prosecutors to omit listing quantities of
drugs in indictments for low-level drug crimes, thus sidestepping the sort
of mandatory sentences that led Papa to serve his 12 years.
"Society would be better served by not locking up people for extraordinarily
long sentences for non-violent, low-level drug offences" said Papa. "It's a
waste of valuable tax dollars and a waste of human lives."
Drug-related offences drive the vast majority of the US's bloated and
expensive prison population, a point made by Holder in his speech in San
Francisco. Around half of the 200,000 people in federal prisons are locked up
for drug offences, and about 60% are serving time under mandatory sentencing
provisions, according to The Sentencing Project, a campaign group for reform.
Just under half of the 25,000 people incarcerated every year for drug offences
are lower-level offenders, such as street-level dealers and couriers.
Mark Mauer,
executive director of The Sentencing Project, said "thousands" of offenders
fell into the category. Mauer described Holder's proposals as a "significant
development" which would not only go towards reducing prison populations but
would also have an effect on the treatment of drug offenders.
He said: "Since the 'war on drugs' there have been huge developments in drug
courts and drug treatment but mandatory sentencing has acted against those. This
represents a one way to open that up a bit and increase the potential scope of
other options."
Mauer said that incarceration had little impact on the number or scale of
drug crimes in the US. "Even more than other offences, prison has very little
impact on drug crime overall. If you take someone from the street corner selling
drugs, they are immediately replaced."
Holder's proposals are part of a wider debate on incarceration and the war on
drugs that has been gaining support across the political divide. Ethan Nadelmann,
the executive director of the
Drug Policy Alliance, which has been advocating change for years, was
disappointed that Obama's administration had not acted sooner.
Nadelmann said: "There's no good reason why the
Obama administration couldn't have done something like this during his first
term – and tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans have suffered
unjustly as a result of their delay."
But he said Obama and Holder deserved credit for decisive action. Nadelmann
added that while prosecutors cannot legally be required to refrain from
enforcing the law, the new guidelines would allow them discretion or to have a
"shred of humanity", in order to examine the circumstances of criminals such as
drug mules and couriers. He said the new guidelines would also curtail cases in
which, because of plea bargaining, "significant drug dealers" may be given a
lower sentences than a courier, mule or "a girlfriend whose only job was to open
the door".
The national politics of the issue have shifted significantly recently,
enabling cross party support for Holder's "bold" proposals, Nadelmann said.
Fuelled by a need to save money on prison costs, several conservative states
have sought ways to reduce the number of low-level drug offenders who are
incarcerated. Texas and Arkansas, for example, have examined a wave of measures
including reducing prison terms, diverting people into treatment programmes and
releasing inmates on good behaviour early. Republican governors and senators,
including Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah, have worked to allow
judges to depart from mandatory minimum sentencing when circumstances merit.
Bipartisan bills are being introduced on the issue.
Advocates for reform say that changes that affect sentences for offenders,
such as the Fair Sentencing Act, which was passed by Congress in 2010 to address
racial disparities in the sentencing laws on cocaine, should be applied
retroactively.
Holder Wants Changes in Criminal Justice
System August 12, 2013
With the U.S. facing massive
prison overflow, Attorney General Eric Holder called Monday for major changes to
the criminal justice system that would scale back harsh sentences for certain
drug related crimes.
In 1973, two years after President Nixon declared a “war on drugs,” New York
Governor Rockefeller passed the toughest drug laws in the nation. It was then
that the Rockefeller Drug Laws were created, demanding mandatory sentences for
people convicted of drug law violations, while removing the Judge’s power to
consider each case individually. The Rockefeller Laws made New York’s prisons
become a merciless machine, destroying families and lives, and locking up tens
of thousands of first-time offenders, many addicted to drugs. Eventually these
laws became the template for the federal government’s draconian sentencing laws
passed in the 1980s that imprisoned millions of Americans with mandatory minimum
sentences.
In 1985, I made the biggest mistake in my life – and it cost me my freedom,
my soul, and my humanity. Because I was desperate for cash I was convinced by a
bowling teammate to get involved with a drug deal. In exchange for $500, I
transported an envelope containing 4 ounces of cocaine from the Bronx to Mt.
Vernon, NY. To my surprise I walked into a police sting operation where 20
undercover cops were waiting for me. I did everything I could do wrong and I was
convicted and sentenced to 15 years-to-life under the Rockefeller Drug Laws. I
served 12 years in a maximum security prison until I was granted executive
clemency by Governor George Pataki in 1997.
Upon my release, I struggled with my newly found freedom and realized that
the freedom I fought so long and hard to win was not what I imagined it to be.
The way of life I once knew was gone, along with my friends and support base. I
discovered I was quite alone in a new world that had drastically changed.
Despite this I could not forget those I left in prison and decided to go on a
rescue mission to save them and change the laws that had imprisoned me.
I become an activist and traveled to Albany New York with groups like the
Drug Policy Alliance to meet with politicians. After having several
conversations with elected officials I soon realized that change would not occur
from the top down. Instead I knew that any change that would occur would have to
be done from the bottom up - with a street movement that would unite the masses
and legitimize our cause. I then co-founded the NY Mothers of the Disappeared
with Randy Credico, the director of the William Kunstler Fund for Racial
Justice. The group soon became leading advocates for the reform of the
Rockefeller Drug Laws. With a motley crew of crippled and sick family members of
those imprisoned under the drug laws, we began to generate tremendous press,
press that put a human face to the Rockefeller Drug Laws. Soon after,
celebrities and politicians like Andrew Cuomo and hip-hop entrepreneur Russell
Simmons joined the movement. After 30+ years of struggle, some minor reforms
were made in 2004 and 2005, and then in 2009 broader reforms were made under
Gov. David Paterson.
Yet much more needs to be done. A comprehensive new report – Blueprint for a
Public Health and Safety Approach to Drug Policy – by The New York Academy of
Medicine and the Drug Policy Alliance presents an all-inclusive set of
wide-ranging recommendations to implement a health-based approach to drug
policy. It calls for strong, effective leadership to seize this
once-in-a-generation opportunity. The report demonstrates how New York’s drug
policies remain largely split between two different and often contradictory
approaches – criminalization and health – despite the historic 2009 reforms of
the notoriously draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws.
The draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws, signed May 8, 1973, became the model for
the failed “war on drugs” as states around the country adopted New York’s
approach, leading the U.S. to incarcerate more of its own citizens than any
other country in the world. It is our hope that New York can lead the nation in
a new direction that would embrace the true meaning of justice.
Anthony Papa is the manager of media relations for the Drug Policy Alliance in
New York.
Landmark Conference: At 40th Anniversary of the
Rockefeller Drug Laws, Convening Explores How NY Can Become National
Model by Shifting Drug Policy from a Criminalization-Based to a
Health-Based Approach
Groundbreaking Gathering in Buffalo
Brings Together Community Groups and Experts in Law
Enforcement, Treatment, Prevention and Harm Reduction to
Discuss New Approaches
National Experts to Discuss Best
Practices From New York and U.S.; International Speakers
to Discuss Toronto and Vancouver’s Four Pillars Drug
Strategies and
Portugal’s Decriminalization Approach
Buffalo, NY: Today marks the start of a major two-day
conference in Buffalo to discuss ending the war on drugs
and mass incarceration in NY – and establishing truly
effective drug policies guided by public health and
safety. The conference convenes almost 40 years to the
day after Governor Nelson Rockefeller signed the
Rockefeller Drug Laws. The laws represented a
criminalization-focused “lock-‘em-up-and-throw-away-the-key”
approach to drug policy requiring long, mandatory prison
terms for even first-time drug law violations. But the
laws never achieved their stated intent, as health and
safety outcomes were not substantially improved.
Meanwhile the criminalization-based approach led to
under-development of our prevention and treatment
systems, mass incarceration, and extraordinary racial
disparities.
The conference,
Leading the Way: Toward a Public Health & Safety
Approach to Drug Policy in New York, brings
together elected officials, law enforcement,
treatment providers, prevention experts, healthcare
providers, people in recovery, people who currently
use drugs, family members of overdose victims,
formerly incarcerated people, scholars, activists,
and more. Over two days, attendees will discuss
developing a new drug policy in New York, and will
explore the changing landscape of drug policy in New
York and the nation, such as the growing bipartisan
opposition to mass incarceration and support for
alternatives to incarceration; the implementation of
the Affordable Care Act; and the 2012 elections,
when Colorado and Washington became the first
jurisdictions anywhere in the world to legally
regulate marijuana.
The conference is informed by a comprehensive new
report by The New York Academy of Medicine and the
Drug Policy Alliance:
Blueprint for a Public Health and Safety Approach to
Drug Policy. In an editorial last week,
The New York Times called the report “timely”
and said it “provides a detailed blueprint for how
the state could remake its drug treatment delivery
system and remove public policy obstacles to timely
and accessible treatment.” Attendees will discuss
the report’s findings and recommendations.
New York is in prime position to lead the nation in
a new direction. The draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws
– signed May 8, 1973 – became the model for the
failed “war on drugs” as states around the country
adopted New York’s criminalization approach, leading
the U.S. to incarcerate more of its own citizens
than any other country in the world. New York
reformed the Rockefeller Drug Laws in 2009, but as
outlined in the Blueprint report, New York remains
stuck in the “Rockefeller paradigm.” Now, in a
historic shift unthinkable just a decade ago,
leaders in New York, the White House, and many
elected officials from both sides of the aisle agree
that drug policies must shift toward a public health
approach, reflecting 20 years of evidence and public
opinion polls finding that more than three-quarters
of Americans believe that the
criminalization-focused “war on drugs” has failed.
Yet moving to a public health approach has proved to
be easier said than done, as both federal and state
budgets continue to emphasize enforcement,
prosecution and incarceration.
Conference speakers – from around New York, the
U.S., and the world – will discuss effective drug
policies that have been implemented abroad. Speakers
from Toronto and Vancouver will discuss how those
cities utilize a “Four Pillars” model – prevention,
treatment, law enforcement and harm reduction – and
will share lessons and insights about municipal
efforts to establish more effective drug policies.
The Vice President of the Lisbon Dissuasion
Commission of the Portugal Ministry of Health will
discuss Portugal’s innovative drug policy,
implemented in 2001. While drugs remain illegal in
Portugal, there is no criminal penalty for
possession or use of small amounts of drugs – an
approach called “decriminalization.” Instead of
criminalization, the country has pursued a policy
of civil administration and service provision,
coupling education with expanded treatment options,
resulting in reductions in drug use, transmission of
blood-borne illness, and drug-related crime.
Over two days, and with the Blueprint as a reference
guide, conference participants will discuss
evidence-based strategies for building a
coordinated, health-focused approach to drug policy
in New York that addresses prevention, treatment,
harm, reduction, public safety, and racial
disparities – so that New York can once again lead
the nation, this time by implementing more effective
drug policies.
Your article pointed out that there are 500,000 people
in prison or jail for drug crimes. This is a staggering statistic that is
compounded to the point of amazement by the fact that most of those serving
these draconian sentences are nonviolent.
I speak from the vantage of someone who served a
mandatory 15-to-life sentence under the Rockefeller drug laws of New York State
for a first-time nonviolent drug offense in 1985.
I wound up serving 12 years of that sentence before
Gov. George A. Pataki granted me executive clemency.
The bottom line is that mandatory minimum sentencing
laws have proved to be a failure. It’s time that we abolish these laws and
instead institute a system that protects society and is cost-efficient and fair
for all.
ANTHONY PAPA
Manager of Media Relations
Drug Policy Alliance
New York, Dec. 12, 2012
FLASH!
11/3/12/ Anthony Papa testifies at Nuke Hearing to save lives of prisoners at
Sing Sing.
U.S. judges hear safety worries as part of Indian Pt. relicensing
Oct 24, 2012
TARRYTOWN—
The tiers of cells and the large, often-broken
windows of the housing units at the Sing Sing Correctional Facility in Ossining
would provide no protection during a radiological accident at nearby Indian
Point, a former inmate testified Tuesday.
“There would be total chaos. The danger element would be
elevated not only for other prisoners but also for guards,” said Tony Papa, who
served 12 years in Sing Sing on a drug charge before Gov. George Pataki granted
him clemency in 1997.
“People’s survival instinct would kick in,” he
continued. “Predatory prisoners would try to take advantage, they would try to
escape (or) cause a riot.”
Papa spoke before three federal administrative judges
who are examining technical, environmental and safety issues related to the
relicensing of the nuclear power plant in Buchanan.
The licenses for the two reactors expire next year and
in 2015 and Indian Point’s owner, Entergy Nuclear, has applied to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for 20-year extensions.
Tuesday’s testimony focused on environmental justice
matters raised by the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater and how a radiological
emergency at Indian Point might impact the county’s minority communities and
those housed in nearby hospitals, jails and other institutions.
Patricia Milligan, an NRC health physicist, told the
judges that prisoners in Sing Sing faced no undue danger in terms of radiation
exposure. The judges are part of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, an
independent arm of the NRC.
“While it is possible that special populations, such as
those incarcerated at Sing Sing, could receive radiation doses higher than other
populations that are immediately able to self-evacuate, any doses received would
be within (federal) dose guidelines,” she said.
Milligan said she has met with high-level state
correction officials who are “absolutely confident they can evacuate Sing Sing.”
The state and Riverkeeper have also filed several
“contentions” as to why the NRC shouldn’t renew the licenses. They have
questioned Entergy’s maintenance of aging plant components and whether the
company had correctly estimated evacuation costs.
The relicensing hearing started last week, will continue
through Thursday and then break until December.
The NRC will use the judges’ recommendations when
deciding whether Indian Point should operate for another 20 years.
Several expert witnesses speaking for Clearwater
employed the specter of New Orleans immediately following Hurricane Katrina,
when residents were trapped and public order crumbled.
Dr. Erik Larsen, an emergency medicine physician, said
the less affluent who don’t own cars might be unable to leave the area following
a nuclear accident at the plant. Hospitals, he said, might be short-staffed
“because people would be concerned about their families.”
Entergy has said its emergency plans are regularly
reviewed and Indian Point has received top NRC safety ratings.
FLASH! 1/3/12
Anthony Papa went on a rescue mission to ask Gov. Cuomo to grant clemency for the
holiday season for Rockefeller Drug Offenders who are still stuck in prison. He pitched the story to the media which resulted in massive media
coverage of the issue including two articles by the NY Times. The results
of this :
The governor’s advisers are now conducting
intensive reviews of requests for pardons or clemency from people serving severe
sentences for drug offenses that are no longer punished so harshly -
NY Times / Jim Dwyer Lessons in DNA and Mercy
12/29/11
Governor gets requests, but no sign of action as holiday season
passes
Times Union
By JIMMY VIELKIND, Capitol bureau /
December 29, 2011
ALBANY — Christmas has come and gone. The lights of Hanukkah
have flickered. The days before the New Year are ticking away.
And while Gov.
Andrew Cuomo has expertly wielded his gubernatorial powers
this year, he's on track to end it without trying out one of its
most unique tools: the ability to grant pardons.
Governors
have traditionally announced pardons around the winter holiday
season, dovetailing on its air of joy and charity. Gov.
David Paterson, for example, pardoned 24 people on Christmas
Eve 2010.
But Cuomo let the holiday pass, and his aides offer no
indication that any announcement is in the works. Advocates for
judicial reform and immigrants' rights, however, hope the freeze
won't be permanent.
"We've been telling them that there are a lot of minor
pardons that could have life-changing consequences, and they're
looking at how to set that up. They're just not ready to
announce that this year," said Chung-Wha Hong, executive
director of the
New York Immigration Coalition.
Paterson's 2010 pardons focused on immigrants in the country
on work permits who couldn't apply for citizenship because
they'd been convicted of criminal offenses.
Under a hard line taken by federal immigration officials, the
convictions are grounds for deportation proceedings.
He set up a special panel that reviewed over 1,000 cases, and
pardoned several dozen people before leaving office.
Many of those files remained in the governor's office after
Cuomo — a Democrat like Paterson — took office.
Cuomo spokesman
Matt Wing said administration lawyers are reviewing hundreds
of applications, but offered few details on whether any would
result in pardons. The governor has the power to either commute
a sentence, which lets a criminal conviction stand while
releasing an inmate from prison, or offer executive clemency,
expunging an offense from someone's record either during or
after their sentence.
"The granting of pardons and clemencies plays a vital role in
the administration of fair and equal justice," said Wing in an
email. "It is a power that the governor will use practically and
methodically to help ensure everyone is treated fairly under
the law."
Hong said her organization was pushing Cuomo to set up a
system similar to Paterson's. The governor has won praise from
her group for speaking out against the federal Secure
Communities program, and for establishing a hotline for
residents to get government information in languages other
than English.
Over the past decade, governors faced pressure to stay the
sentences of offenders convicted under Rockefeller-era drug laws
that allowed judges to send people to prison for up to life for
drug possession.
While the laws were rolled back in 2004 and again in 2009,
Tony Papa, an ex-offender pardoned by Gov.
George Pataki who now serves as spokesman for the
Drug Policy Alliance, said some offenders are unable to
apply for reduced sentences because of "procedural roadblocks."
"Gov. Cuomo, before he was attorney general, stood on the
front lines with us trying to reform these laws," said Papa.
"When he ran for the governorship for the first time in 2002, he
used my case as an example of the injustice. ... There are many
people still lingering."
In 2006, during a debate in the race for state attorney general,
Andrew M. Cuomo criticized his opponent for having failed to give a DNA
test to a man who was in prison for a murder that he turned out to have had
nothing to do with. A few years before that, Mr. Cuomo spoke at a party for
a book written by a man who had spent 12 years in prison for having handled
$500 in a drug sting.
When Mr. Cuomo became governor last year, he arrived with as strong a set
of credentials in criminal justice as any New York governor since Thomas E.
Dewey, who served from 1943 to 1954. He also arrived with knowledge that no
governor before him could have had: the results of 20 years of DNA testing
that had not only freed innocent people — New York is second or third in the
nation in
wrongful convictions, depending on how you do the counting — but had
also provided an X-ray of the invisible, broken bones of criminal justice.
DNA tests got innocent people out of jail and, just as important, showed
how they got there in the first place, exposing the parade of mistaken
eyewitnesses and the chorus of false confessions.
But Mr. Cuomo made no promises about cashing in on the lessons of the DNA
era for reforms during his first year, and didn’t. The state was in the red,
the health care system was financially decrepit, and his biggest legislative
initiative involved marshaling votes for the legalization of same-sex
marriage.
He did not lay a glove on a world that he knows well. In addition, it now
appears that he will end his first year as chief executive as many other
governors and presidents of the last three decades have, by keeping his
distance, at least publicly, from the granting of pardons and clemency.
On both fronts, insiders say, that is likely to change. The governor’s
advisers are now conducting intensive reviews of requests for pardons or
clemency from people serving severe sentences for drug offenses that are no
longer punished so harshly, from immigrants who faced deportation over
relatively minor crimes in their distant past, and from others who may have
been justly convicted but who are serving prison terms that will hollow out
their lives, at no benefit to society. For those able to get their cases
before the governor’s staff, his power to pardon and grant clemency can be a
magical and restorative bullet.
Mr. Cuomo does not intend to let that authority lie dormant, his chief
spokesman, Josh Vlasto, said on Thursday. “It is a power that the governor
will use practically and methodically to help ensure everyone is treated
fairly under the law,” Mr. Vlasto said.
The power to pardon, which is a rare and absolute authority granted to
the executive, has fallen into disuse since the early 1980s, the
chief federal judge in New York, Dennis Jacobs, said in October in a
speech at the New School.
A turkey is granted presidential clemency at Thanksgiving. President
Ronald Reagan used the power to pardon a stock car racer with an ancient
conviction for moonshine-making. The first President George Bush erased the
record of a man convicted of stealing six-packs of beer when he was a
teenager. President Bill Clinton doled out a pardon to a wealthy man who had
gone on the lam from tax evasion charges.
In New York, the only pardon George E. Pataki granted during his 12 years
in office was to the comedian Lenny Bruce, 37 years after his death, for his
conviction on the use of obscenities in his nightclub act.
The frittering away of such a mighty power, Judge Jacobs said, was a
wasted opportunity to fix what the court system could not. “What a shame
that it should lie neglected or be put to trivial uses when it is the
easiest way to improve law and justice decisively and at one stroke,” he
said.
A pardon takes care of one person’s problem but gets nowhere near the
taproots of error from which injustice grows. For much of the last decade,
the Legislature and various governors have been unable to agree on how to
apply the lessons of the DNA era, like finding new ways to show suspects to
eyewitnesses, and taping all interrogations of people in custody.
Every time there’s a wrongful conviction, the state loses a chance at a
“rightful” conviction. The guilty go free. The case that Mr. Cuomo talked
about at that debate in 2006 is a prime example. While an innocent man was
in prison for a murder that he falsely confessed to, the real criminal was
on the street, and killed another young woman.
As Andrew M. Cuomo comes to the end of his first year as governor, it’s a
moment to remember that he has yet to exercise one power that does not
require him to argue with Sheldon Silver in the State Assembly, haggle with
Dean G. Skelos in the Senate, box with Michael R. Bloomberg in City Hall or
fence with the public employee unions.
Mr. Cuomo can grant pardons to people who have been convicted of a state
crime, or commute their sentences through an act of clemency. The only
negotiations are with his own conscience. But it is “the
power nobody wants,” as it was described in the title of a panel
discussion on the subject at the New School in October.
So far, Mr. Cuomo has granted no pardons or clemency, and his office
would not say if there were plans for any. By custom, governors often
announce their decisions at this time of year. His predecessor, David A.
Paterson, said that the last weeks of his term were his most gut-wrenching
in office because of an avalanche of requests. People who had been in prison
but gone on to live productive lives wanted the stains lifted from the
official histories of their lives. Others were looking for help before their
cases were over.
“There’s a pizza parlor I no longer go into because the owner wanted
one,” Mr. Paterson said on Tuesday. “I have a doctor I no longer see because
he wanted a pardon for his son in a Medicaid fraud case. The son had been
convicted but he hadn’t even been sentenced yet. In another case, a
prominent entrepreneur wanted a pardon for an employee who also hadn’t been
sentenced yet.”
Mr. Cuomo has received hundreds of requests, but only a small fraction of
them meet the requirements to be examined in depth, his spokesman, Josh
Vlasto, said on Tuesday. “It’s a methodical and thought-out process,” Mr.
Vlasto said. “We have ongoing reviews.”
The power to dispense official mercy was given to New York governors by
the State Constitution in 1777, a way to temper excesses in the justice
system. A governor may give a pardon or commute a sentence any day of the
week, for any reason whatsoever. Or not. As it happens, New York State
publishes a list of requirements, but if a governor chooses to ignore
them, the decision cannot be overturned by the Legislature or the courts.
The practice of official mercy went
into steep decline in the 1980s, in New York and elsewhere. Gov. Hugh L.
Carey granted 155 pardons and commutations during his two terms, from 1975
through 1982; his successor, Mario M. Cuomo, who served 12 years, from 1983
through 1994, commuted the sentences of 37 people; in the next 12 years,
George E. Pataki commuted the sentences of 32 individuals and granted one
pardon, to a dead man, the comedian Lenny Bruce. During Eliot Spitzer’s 13
months in office, he gave one pardon.
Then Mr. Paterson took office.
Articles in The New York Times and elsewhere reported on the cases of
people who, because of changes in immigration law and enforcement practices,
were suddenly facing deportation for crimes they had committed years
earlier. Mr. Paterson recited a few examples from memory: “A woman who
committed a minor crime suddenly ends up in indefinite detention, and she
has a 5-year-old child,” he said. “A man who would have been a treasurer at
CUNY was facing deportation.”
He also heard a plea from advocates on behalf of Judith Clark, who is
serving a 75-year sentence as the getaway driver in the armed robbery of a
Brinks truck in Rockland County that resulted in the murders of two police
officers and a Brinks guard.
Mr. Paterson was candid about his political considerations. Heavily
criticized for much of his time as governor, he had burnished his reputation
with newspaper editorial boards during his final months by imposing fiscal
discipline. “This is still very raw in Rockland, there’s a memorial, and if
I do this, I will get tarred and feathered,” Mr. Paterson said.
He set up a panel to review pardons based on immigration hardships, and
asked for advice from Mr. Pataki. “He said, for the most part, he avoided
it, that there were few cases that warranted it,” Mr. Paterson said. About
1,900 applications came to Mr. Paterson. In all, he pardoned 35 people and
commuted the sentences of three.
“My counsel staff and I were completely overwrought,” Mr. Paterson said.
“We made a final decision on the last day; one we decided not to do. When I
went to the governor’s inauguration on Jan. 1, I breathed a sigh of relief.”
E-mail: dwyer@nytimes.com
-------------------------
12/24/11/
Andrea
Sears News Editor of Pacifica Radio's
WBAI Evening News interviews Tony Papa
about Gov. Cuomo and Clemency and the Rockefeller Drug Laws http://ping.fm/NbyHb (listen to
show)
www.capitaltonight.comDec
23, 2011 - 8 min video
Will Cuomo Make Any Pardons? ... After 12 years in
prison, Papa was granted clemency by Governor...
One of the powers that the Governor of New York has is the ability to grant
clemency or outright pardons to prisoners. Over the years, many people have seen
their sentences reduced, most of them victims of the stiff Rockefeller Drug
Laws.
One of them was Anthony Papa, who in his book 15 to life wrties that he was
offered a chance to make a quick $500 dollars for delivering an envelope, but
ended up getting busted as part of a sting operation. It was his first offense.
And he ended up getting sentenced to 15 years in Sing Sing prison. After 12
years in prison, Papa was granted clemency by Governor George Pataki. And now
Papa is writing to Governor Cuomo to ask him to show leniency in his first year
in office.
Tony Papa joined Liz from New York City. he’s the Manager of media relations
for the Drug Policy Alliance.
Will Governor Cuomo Show Compassion This Holiday
Season and Grant Clemencies? by Anthony Papa
Posted: 12/21/11 07:50 AM ET
Every year about this time I write to the governor of New York and
ask him to go on a rescue mission and grant
clemency to people convicted under the notorious
Rockefeller Drug Laws.
The holiday season is a traditional time for executives to use
their power of clemency or pardons to show mercy to individuals that
are imprisoned under unjust laws. These are individuals who have
already served enormous amounts of time but are stuck in prison and
have no legal remedies to regain their freedom. This year I am
making the request to Governor Andrew Cuomo who at the present time
has his
highest approval rate since in office (68 percent). In the past,
Governor Cuomo has
worked with me and others to reform these laws so he is someone
who knows first-hand about their draconian nature.
I have made this request to several other NY Governors. The first
time was to Governor George Pataki while I was rotting away in a 6x9
cell in 1994. I was serving a 15 to life sentence for a first time
non-violent drug offense when I delivered an envelope containing
four ounces of cocaine for the sum of $500.00. It was the worst
mistake I ever made in my life and I paid dearly for it. To my
surprise he
granted me executive clemency in 1996. When I got out I decided
to save the many individuals that I had left behind. I became an
activist and dedicated my life to change the laws that wasted
valuable tax dollars and have destroyed so many lives.
I lobbied Governor Pataki for years to reform these laws and
grant clemency to those who deserved a second chance in life. Pataki
was a tough on crime politician but to his credit he managed to give
32 clemencies, with 28 of them to Rock Law offenders. After he left
office I made the same request to
Governor Elliot Spitzer in 2007 who in response granted zero
clemencies.
It was an insult to those many men and women who were
rehabilitated and had served many years in prison under the
mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of the Rockefeller Drug
Laws. This prompted massive criticism from prisoner advocates who
argued that his failure to show mercy to worthy prisoners was
unacceptable.
His denial to grant any clemencies was counter to a promise
Spitzer made during his 2006 campaign to continue to support efforts
to reform the Rockefeller Drug laws. Bob Gangi of the Correction
Association compared
Spitzer to Ebenezer Scrooge before he was visited by the ghost
of Jacob Marley. Spitzer's approval ratings sharply declined after
this and in 2008 he left office in disgrace.
Governor Spitzer was replaced by Governor David Paterson who as a
Senator from Harlem New York understood the ineffectiveness of the
Rockefeller Drug Laws. For years he also stood by our side
advocating for change of these laws and in
2009 he pushed through historic Rockefeller reforms. While in
office he granted 37 clemencies and pardons and followed the trend
set by Governor Mario Cuomo who granted 33 and Governor Hugh Carey
who granted 155.
I recently sat on a panel discussion at the New School and
learned a lot about this issue of governors granting clemencies and
pardons to individuals. The former Governor of Maryland Robert L.
Ehrlish spoke frankly about this and was disappointed with the lack
of use of the power to grant pardons and clemencies. He wrote about
this in the NY Times in an op-ed titled
"A Broken System, and Too Few Pardons."
He blamed the lack of use of the powers of clemency and pardons
on the "Willie Horton syndrome." This refers to the early release of
a prisoner who then committed a murder and the case was used against
Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts when he ran for president
in 1988 against George H. W. Bush. His lost to Bush was blamed on
Dukakis's support of a prison furlough program that was responsible
for Horton's release. This one bad apple forever ruined the way
executives would use the powers of clemency and pardons.
Despite the "Horton syndrome" Gov. Ehrlish granted an amazing 249
pardons and commutations. When interviewed by the Baltimore Sun he
said that by granting individuals their freedom he was met with
neither moral outrage nor wild cheering. But on a personal level
Governor Ehrlish was extremely gratified to hear from those who
received clemency from him and had expressed their gratitude for
giving them a second chance in life by restoring their freedom and
the many civil rights that were taken away. It was this sense of
restoration that drove the process for Governor Ehrlish.
Perhaps this sense of restoration might be an example for
Governor Cuomo to follow while in office. To be sentenced under
unjust laws to a tremendous amount of time is unconscionable. I know
because it happened to me. There will be many families praying this
holiday season that Governor Cuomo shows his compassion for those
who are have fallen through the cracks of the criminal justice
system and have no alternative means of escaping the living hell
they and their families face every day.
______________________
Flash! 12/ 16/11/ The Right to vote for all
protest at the united nations
The right to vote is an important part of being an American
citizen. Despite this fact, in 2011 several state legislatures
have introduced bills that would make it harder for you to
exercise your right to vote. This effort is unprecedented in
scope, well-coordinated, and carefully targeted. African
Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Native Americans, students,
working women, seniors, and immigrants of all colors will be
disproportionately affected. What we're facing is the most
aggressive attempt to roll back voting rights in over a century.
Today, voter suppression takes many forms, including attacks
on early and Sunday voting to make voting harder for working
people; photo ID requirements for voting and registration that
introduce the first financial barrier to voting since the poll
tax; and the same racially motivated ex-felon bans. I personally
was affected by this.
When I was released from prison after serving 12 years under
the Rockefeller Drug Laws, I had no clue about my eligibility to
cast a vote. When I went to register to vote I was shocked when
they informed me that I had to wait until I was released from
parole. I felt the pain of felony disenfranchisement since it
seemed I was being further punished for my crime. I saw my
Queens neighborhood deteriorating around me but was powerless to
do anything about it by casting my vote. I was elated when,
after waiting for five years, I got off parole and was able to
cast my first vote since being released from prison. I felt then
like I was fully welcomed back by society as a citizen.
Millions of people convicted of felonies will be barred from
voting in the upcoming presidential election. This is a
mind-boggling number of people who will be disenfranchised. The
most alarming aspect is that many of them are eligible to vote
but don't know it.
In New York State, if you are convicted of a felony, you
automatically lose your right to vote. According to the
Legal Action Center, your right to vote is restored once you
have completed either parole or your maximum sentence. If you
are on probation, your right to vote is never taken away. But
most ex-felons do not know this and do not vote. This amounts to
hundreds of thousands of individuals who incorrectly assume they
are banned from voting for life.
You may wonder why prisoners are not notified of this right.
I think the problem lies in the voting system itself. In New
York it was discovered that one-third of election officials did
not know that individuals on probation could vote. To fix this
problem, states must better train election officials and
eliminate complicated registration procedures and paperwork to
make sure criminal defendants are fully informed about their
voting rights.
Exercising the right to vote should be an important part of a
prisoner's rehabilitation. It's an act that makes one feel whole
again following years of losing those rights. If, through
voting, individuals can become involved in the political
process, they have a much better chance of fully integrating
back into society.
Benjamin Todd Jealous, the current president and chief
executive officer of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP),
says in a letter targeted to voters:
Our nation is in the midst of the most aggressive attempt to
roll back voting rights in over a century. This effort is
unprecedented, it is coordinated, and it is targeted. As you
are aware, this year alone, two-thirds of state legislatures
introduced and/or passed laws aimed at suppressing our vote.
These attacks on our voting rights undermine the very heart
of what the NAACP and our partners have fought for since our
founding. For those of us who have worked to restore the
voting rights for the formerly incarcerated, this is an all
too familiar tactic to further marginalize not only people
with criminal records, but entire communities of color, the
poor, the disabled and other disadvantaged people across
this country. Throughout history, the target has been the
voting rights of formerly incarcerated individuals. A
century ago, the target was the voting rights of Black
voters and other voters of color. Today, the target is the
voting rights of Black voters, Latino voters, Asian American
voters, Native American voters, as well as students and
young people, women, senior citizens, people with
disabilities and immigrants of ALL colors. This year the
NAACP will launch a multi-year initiative aimed at raising
national awareness of these attacks.
On December 10th,
U.N. Human Rights Day, NAACP will lead a coalition of more
than 100 ethnic, community and faith organizations in a rally in
New York City for voting rights. In solidarity with the New York
rally, NAACP units nationwide will encourage communities to
mobilize around voting rights, and will organize events across
the country in support of voter rights. A march is planned from
the office of the Koch brothers -- who are funding many of these
anti-voting rights measures -- to a rally at the United Nations
headquarters.
Please join me along with the NAACP on Saturday to stand
for freedom and protect our right to vote.
Here are the details:
10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.: assemble 61st St. and Madison
Ave., the Koch brothers' NYC office
11:30 a.m.: March from 61st St. and Madison Ave. to Dag
Hammarskjold Plaza at 47th St. and 2nd Ave.
12:30 p.m.: Rally at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza across from the
United Nations
For more information go to the
NAACP website
Flash! Nov. 15, 20110 The New School had an amazing panel of the
issue of pardons and clemency.
"Executive clemency is a very important vehicle for those who have fallen
through the cracks of the criminal justice system because of unjust
draconian draw laws that exist in the United States."~ Anthony Papa
DPA's Tony Papa at The New School Panel on Pardons: The
Power Nobody Wants
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at The New School in NYC
The Hon. Dennis Jacobs, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, and a distinguished panel of experts explore the history and real-world
application of the power of pardon at the state and federal level.
Following opening remarks by New School president David E. Van Zandt, Judge
Jacobs explains the history of the power, its role in correcting injustice in
the application of criminal law, and the way the decline in its use reflects a
missed opportunity, lack of imagination, and failure of courage.
Our panel then examines the critical historical, legal, economic, and ethical
issues surrounding the pardon power and the implications of its greater or
lesser use. Panelists include:
Moderator: Senator Bob Kerrey, President Emeritus, The New School.
Hon. Dennis Jacobs, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Hon. Robert L. Ehrlich, Senior Counsel, King & Spalding; former Governor of
Maryland; former Congressman (R-MD), U.S. House of Representatives.
Julie Stewart, President and Founder, Families Against Mandatory Minimums.
Margaret Colgate Love, Attorney; former Pardon Attorney, Office of the Pardon
Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice.
Anthony Papa, Manager, Media Relations, Drug Policy Alliance; clemency recipient
following imprisonment for first-time, nonviolent drug offense under New York's
draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws.
40 Years After the Attica Prison Uprising:
Celebrating the Heroic Courage of Prisoners Who Risked Their Lives for Justice
By Anthony Papa, AlterNet
Posted on September 8, 2011, Printed on September 12, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/152336/40_years_after_the_attica_prison_uprising%3A_celebrating_the_heroic_courage_of_prisoners_who_risked_their_lives_for_justice
In September of 1971, one of the bloodiest
prison riots in the history of the United States took place at Attica
Correctional Facility in Attica, New York. The uprising was brought on by
prisoners living in terrible conditions who wanted to fix a broken system of
justice.
The prisoners negotiated with state officials and called for improving their
living conditions and the implementation of educational programs. But in seeking
positive changes for those that lived in the darkness of Attica, they were met
with cruel and unusual resistance by their keepers. Soon after their
negotiations failed, National Guard troops and state police stormed Attica on
orders by then-Governor Nelson Rockefeller. On September 13, when the five-day
prison rebellion was over, 39 individuals were dead (29 prisoners and 10
civilians).
To many, the uprising at
Attica was the start of an American movement that sought to bring to light
the horrible conditions of imprisonment and to confront the growing
prison-industrial complex. Surprisingly many of the horrid conditions that
existed back then still plague the present prison system today as seen by the
recent hunger strikes in Georgia and California protesting
dehumanizing conditions.
I gained a personal experience of these conditions when I entered the system
in 1985 to serve a 15-to-life sentence for a drug crime at Sing Sing
Correctional facility. My first stop was the maximum security reception and
classification unit at Downstate Correctional Facility in Fishkill, New York.
The guards marched us off the bus and through a massive steel door in the center
of a lethal electric fence surrounding the prison compound. Coils of razor wire
wrapped and looped through the top of the fence, banishing the thought of
escape. We were led through a series of gates and checkpoints and into a
building, where we were packed like cattle into room for processing.
Ten prison guards sat behind gray iron desks and summoned us individually to
approach. Each prisoner was told to place his bag of belongings on the desk. The
guard dumped the contents and examined them. Just about everything was tossed
into the garbage. One prisoner complained when a guard chucked his love letters
into the trash; when he didn't let up, the guard pulled a pin on his radio and
sat back in his chair while the distraught prisoner continued to complain. "You
got no right," the prisoner said. "Those letters are from my wife, man! You
can't throw them out." He shut up when he saw what was coming through the
double-doors; a dozen guards in helmets and body armor, wielding clubs. "Fuckin'
goon squad," whispered the guy behind me. "Racist bastards," said another. The
complaining prisoner held up his hands in surrender but it was too late. The
goon squad went right for him, tackling him to the floor. They beat him down to
a bloody pulp and dragged him away. The guard who had summoned the goon squad
smirked and paused to look at the rest of us before he called, "Next!"
This Friday, September 9th, a thousand people will gather at historic
Riverside Church in Harlem to commemorate the 40th anniversary of what has come
to be known as the Attica prison uprising. The organization "Attica
is All of Us" will remember the unjust conditions that spurred the Attica
uprising. It will also serve as a call to bring attention to the alarming rate
of incarceration in the United States, the highest in the world, still with
conditions similar to those that brought on the tragedy of Attica riot. Event
organizer Sarah Kunstler, whose late father, civil rights attorney William
Kunstler served as an observer at Attica, said: "The prison population of the
United States has grown exponentially in the 40 years since the Attica rebellion
and massacre. At the time of Attica the American prison population was around
300,000 - today it is over 2.4 million and growing."
Speakers will include survivors, scholars and activists, including Cornel
West, who invites us to recognize that "this occasion celebrates the heroic
courage and sacrificial love of the Attica prisoners in the name of justice."
"Attica is All of Us"
will be held on Friday September 9, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the Nave of Riverside
Church in Harlem. The event is free and open to the public. For more
information:
http://atticaisallofus.org/
In nonviolent drug cases, life
without parole too costly
BY
ANTHONY PAPA The Oklahoman (The states biggest paper)
Published: August 20, 2011
State Sen. Connie Johnson, D-Oklahoma
City, thinks
Larry Yarbrough should be free. Yarbrough, a model prisoner, is in his 17th
year of a life-without-parole sentence for a nonviolent drug crime. On
Wednesday, Johnson successfully spoke on behalf of Yarbrough at an
Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board hearing where the board commuted
Yarbrough's drug trafficking sentence to 42 years. Now if
Gov. Mary Fallin signs off, Yarbrough will be eligible to be released in a
year.
Johnson says Yarbrough's case is an excellent example of disproportionate and
unfair sentencing. Compared with sentences received by others for similar
amounts of the same drugs (an ounce of powder cocaine and three marijuana
cigarettes), Yarbrough's life without parole sentence is clearly excessive.
The Legislature's original intent in enacting life without parole was to
create an alternative between life imprisonment and the death sentence in
capital cases. However, unlike death penalty cases where in order to impose such
a sentence the jury is required to find aggravating circumstances, a jury
recommending life without parole needs no reason whatsoever. This fact
guarantees disproportionate and inherently unfair sentencing.
Life without parole sentences for drug crimes have not resulted in decreased
drug trafficking. Instead, they have committed Oklahoma taxpayers to paying
$23,000 per year, per person (at present rates) to lock up a growing number of
people for life. Taxpayers also are committed to covering prisoners' medical
expenses as they age, get sick and die.
These are tough times for state governments as well as most Americans. For
these reasons, continuing to incarcerate Yarbrough is poor stewardship of the
state's limited resources.
The New York Times pointed out recently that fanned by the financial crisis,
a wave of sentencing and parole reforms is gaining force across the
United States, reversing a trend of “tough on crime” policies that lasted
for decades and drove the nation's incarceration rate to the highest — and most
costly — levels in the developed world. While liberals have long complained that
harsh mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenses like drug possession
are unjust, the push to overhaul penal policies has been increasingly embraced
by elected officials in some of the most conservative states in the country. And
for a different reason: to save money.
Life without parole for drug crimes is a policy we can ill afford, especially
since it has done nothing to deter drug trafficking. Hopefully, these facts will
result in ending the injustice of life without parole, Together we can
demonstrate the power of the people, step up, and help make the right thing
happen.
Flash! Papa Breaks open nypd lab tech scandal! after this
story was written the ny post published a update of the case (read about it
below this Huff Post piece)
Mariem Megalla is a 24-year veteran forensic technician with the New
York Police Department. She was
suspended from her job last year when she was caught falsifying drug
test results at the NYPD's crime lab in Jamaica, Queens. Because of
this, thousands of court cases were thrown into question, prompting
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly to call a meeting with representatives
of the five district attorneys at the office of NYC's special narcotics
prosecutor Bridget Brennan.
Given the length of her tenure at the
NYPD, it was
reported that potentially hundreds, if not thousands, of cases would
have to be reviewed. In one example, Megalla was accused of labeling a
crack pipe positive for cocaine when it actually tested negative because
she didn't want to walk to another building to fill out the required
paperwork. Megalla's slacking on the job led to a probe by the both the
NYPD and the Queens District Attorney's Office.
One year later, a lot of questions remain unanswered about this case.
It's not even clear whether Mariem Megalla is back on the job or not. I
contacted the NYPD's Public Affairs Office and was told to email my
questions to them. No response. I contacted the Queens District
Attorney's office and spoke to Helen Peterson who declined to talk about
their investigation of the case. I then talked to several reporters who
had covered the story and most everyone seemed like they were in the
dark about current news of it. Although one reporter told me that he
thought Megalla is back on duty full-time.
The public has a right to know the outcome of this investigation.
There's a possibility that thousands of people's lives were adversely
affected by Megalla's actions, and the absence of any real information
after an entire year is suspicious, at best. Especially when you
consider the very different outcome of a similar case in nearby Nassau:
Recently, it was pointed out that 3,000 convictions were in question
due to possible tainted evidence in the
Nassau County crime lab. After a flurry of press coverage, District
Attorney Kathleen Rice responded to the discovery in the same way the
NYPD did in the Magella case -- by making a public announcement of a
meeting with top-level officials to deal with the issue. But that's
where the similarity stops. In the Nassau County crime lab case,
Governor Andrew Cuomo quickly intervened and appointed State Inspector
General Ellen Biben to lead an investigation, which led to the lab's
demise. In turn, Rice was compelled to send letters to hundreds of
potential defendants which eventually led to many filing motions to
overturn their convictions.
But in the Megalla case it seems to be totally the opposite.
Recently, I was contacted by Diana Collins, whose son is in NY state
prison serving an eight-year sentence for possession of less than one
gram of crack. D' Juan Collins was sentenced in 2008 and has been
fighting his conviction ever since. He claims to be wrongfully
convicted, and has been denied exculpatory evidence by the NYPD that
would show Megalla's mishandling of the drugs used to convict him. But
far worse for him than his sentence is the fact that he is now in
jeopardy of losing parental rights to his four-year-old son Isaiah, who
is currently in foster care. My question is how many D' Juan Collinses
have been denied evidence that could be used to challenge their
convictions?
The NYPD needs to alert the public to the outcome of the Mariem
Megalla case and assure that justice has been served.
NYPD laboratory technician
Mariem Megalla made more than 100 mistakes in 50 of her most
recent drug-evidence tests, including what appear to be
clear examples of records fraud, according to shocking
internal police memos, but she has continued to collect her
$69,000 salary and remains criminally uncharged.
Most of the documented screw-ups appear to be of little
consequence to the outcome of drug cases, simply amounting
to galling sloppiness. Decimal points are misplaced; drug
names and item numbers are switched; three bags are listed
as one bag; a vial crashes to the floor; data sheets go
missing from files.
But police memos obtained by The Post from as recently as
last month reveal even more substantial errors as an
18-month investigation by cops and the Queens DA unspools
and Megalla continues at full salary in a civilian, nonlab
job.
"There should be no inaccuracy at a lab. I mean, people's
lives and freedom are at stake," complains Manhattan lawyer
Darius Wadia, who is representing a Harlem man accused of
selling crack cocaine.
In that case, more than 200 milligrams of the drugs
Megalla tested have gone missing.
"More than a quarter of the sample disappeared, as if two
of the eight crack rocks they charged him [with dealing]
have vanished," Wadia said.
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Ruth Pickholtz said on
Friday that she would rule today on whether to dismiss the
evidence in the case against Wadia's client, Kasien Adderley,
27.
Megalla's worst errors, according to a massive, ongoing
retesting effort dubbed the "Megalla Corrective Action,"
include:
* Some 30 heroin and marijuana samples Megalla said she
tested but, in fact, did not.
In the worst example, Megalla wrote she tested all 31
bags of pot from a '07 bust in Queens, but only tested 13.
She also only tested one of eight bags from a Nov. '08
seizure in the Bronx, according to the internal memos.
Fortunately for prosecutors, Megalla guessed right each
time, retesting showed.
* Some 15 instances of drug-weight disparities, including
two Bronx cases where approximately a gram of coke remains
unaccounted for and a 2008 Brooklyn case where Megalla was
two grams off in weighing a sample that proved to not be a
controlled substance.
"We cannot find any reasonable scientific explanation for
the loss of the 912 milligrams," Thomas Hickey, manager of
the police laboratory's controlled substance analysis
section, wrote prosecutors in October regarding an
especially grievous case of missing cocaine from one of
those Bronx cases.
* Samples of heroin, alprazolam, cocaine, PCP, THC and
oxycodone were missed by Megalla entirely as she tested bulk
seizures of multiple drugs.
She failed to find the PCP and THC dust on a scale seized
by the city-wide Special Narcotics prosecutor, and in one
2009 Staten Island case, she missed a hydrocodeinone pill
mingled in a stash of oxycodone pills.
* Drugs were misidentified by name in paperwork. Megalla
mislabeled the dust on two drug sifters in a Brooklyn case
as cocaine when it was heroin; in another case, she said a
sample contained cocaine, heroin and morphine when it
contained only cocaine.
For at least six of the 60 defendants mentioned in the
memos, Megalla's accuracy will never be known. Those cases
involve drug dust on baggies, envelopes, a straw, even a
dealer's calculator that was entirely consumed by Megalla's
testing, with no residue remaining to be retested.
That includes residual evidence -- purportedly of
hydrocodone and Zolpidem -- from the ongoing murder case of
Gigi Jordan, the psychotic millionairess charged with giving
her autistic, 8-year-old son a fatal overdose of
prescription drugs.
It is unclear if any of the alleged mistakes have
resulted in the dismissal of charges.
"While accused of taking shortcuts, I'm not aware of any
errors being uncovered beyond the shortcuts themselves,
which were not acceptable," police spokesman Paul Browne
said.
She was suspended for 30 days in May, 2010 when the
improprieties first surfaced, but has been back on the
payroll as required by state civil service law, Browne said.
Megalla's lawyer, Benjamin Lieberman, insisted, "She
never did anything [criminally] wrong. That's evidenced by
the DA never bringing back any charges."
Last
week Detective Richard Palase, a NYPD Detective was arrested by federal
authorities and charged with conspiracy to operate an illegal gambling business.
Palase was a central figure in the Columbia University drug bust last year,
which special Narcotics Prosecutor, Bridgett Brennan and Police Commissioner,
Ray Kelly blew up to be a major narcotics arrest.
But in reality it was a small time arrest that netted five students for selling
drugs on their school campus. In a press release distributed by the Office of
the Special Narcotics Prosecutor, headed by Brennan, the bust was dubbed
"Operation Ivy League." It was described as the culmination of a five-month
police sting where they planted a baby-faced looking undercover cop to purchase
drugs from the students.
The undercover detective visited ColumbiaUniversity and
went into the student dorms and made 31 buys over a five-month period.
Christopher Coles, one of the students, told the NY Daily News that the cops
exaggerated the extent of the bust. Now it seems that Coles might be right and
questions are being asked about the case and whether or not the arrest of Det.
Palase could affect its outcome.
Palase was arrested for allegedly heading up a $6,000-per-day gambling operation
in Staten Island. The NYPD veteran of 15 years
was suspended by the department after his arrest. Prosecutors have said that the
suppliers of the drugs, Miron Sarzynski, 24, Megan Asper, 22, both of the East
Village, and Roberto Larages, 30, of Brooklyn, have already pleaded guilty to
the charges. The arrest of Palase might not affect them, but for the Columbia students
that is another case. All five are charged with felonies that are in the early
stages of litigation and something like this might be used to strike a deal that
would help the defense get a plea bargin.
While the "Ivy League" bust generated a wave of media for Brennan and Kelly, the
reality is that the headline-seeking bust has blown up in their faces with the
arrest of Det. Palase. Now let's see what happens to the students who were
arrested and whose lives were ruined because of the overzealous police policies.
Anthony Papa: Cuomo making a
difference with facility closures
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo was successful during budget negotiations in finding
more ways to reduce economic waste. His plan to revamp New York State’s juvenile
system by reducing the capacity of juvenile centers by 30 percent became a
reality when he pushed it through, along with the budget.
But besides the savings associated with closing these facilities, there is
another reason they must be shut down. It’s because of their draconian nature,
unleashed upon young people. Several years ago, I went to speak to young
prisoners in a creative writing class at Spofford Juvenile Center. Spofford was
the focus of criticism and controversy for many years. For a variety of reasons,
it became known as a place that exacerbated the problems of juvenile
delinquents.
When I arrived at Spofford, it reminded me of a miniature Sing Sing Prison
where I spent 12 years for a nonviolent drug crime. I was not prepared for what
I was about to see. There, sitting in the audience, were about 50 boys and
girls, 10 to 15 years old, dressed in their prison uniforms.
In front of me sat a Latino boy who appeared about 8 years old. I found out
later he was 12 and was doing time for assault. I tried to keep my composure,
even though I was in a state of shock. I found out that most of the children had
first-to third-grade reading levels, almost the same as grown prisoners in the
system I was in. The little kid in the front row was amazed and asked if I did
12 straight years. I said yes, and then he dropped a bomb on me. “Did you ever
get raped in there?”
All the kids in the room grew quiet in anticipation of my answer, sitting on
the edge of their seats. I told them that someone had tried but didn’t succeed.
They continued to ask me many questions about my life in prison. I guess they
were interested because many of them would eventually go to prison when they
became old enough. For some of them, cycling in and out of jails would become a
way of life. It was, sadly, a routine implanted deep within their souls at an
early age.
While talking, I could not help but think I was standing in front of the
future residents of maximum prisons like the one I languished in. Faces on kids
in prison don’t tell a story like faces on adults in prison. Back in Sing Sing
you could look at imprisoned men and their faces told vivid tales. These kids
looked so innocent, so needful for love and understanding. I prayed that I had
made some sort of connection that would prevent just one of them walking the
road I had taken. I left Spofford a different person. The experience had secured
my need to confront my demons head-on and to make a difference, not only in my
life but the life of others.
Cuomo is making a difference by revamping the state juvenile system and
saving valuable tax dollars by shutting down troubled facilities. He is on track
to make New York State great again.
Anthony Papa is the author of “15 to Life”and the manager of
media relations forthe Drug Policy Alliance.
-------------------
FLASH! 3/11/2011 ROCKEFELLER REFORMER
RETIRED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JERRY MARKS HAS PASSED ON
The Passing of a Drug Reform Hero: Retired Judge Jerome Marks
Marks devoted his life to change NY's draconian Rockefeller
drug laws and helped secure clemency for prisoners rotting
away in prison for their roles in minor drug crimes.
March 11, 2011 |
There are heroes and then there
are heroes. My good friend Judge Jerry Marks, a former New York
Supreme Court Justice, was a hero’s hero. On March 9, he died at age
95. Judge Marks had a long and distinguished career as a New York
elected official and jurist. He served as state representative for
six years beginning in 1963, and later as a Supreme Court Justice
until he retired in 1992. In his retirement, Marks devoted his life
to change New York's draconian Rockefeller drug laws and helped
secure clemency for prisoners rotting away in prison for their roles
in minor drug crimes.
I knew Judge Marks from my work
as a Rockefeller Drug law activist and the tireless work he did to
help Rock Law offenders receive their freedom. Both as a friend and
a mentor, Judge Marks influenced me to follow his path to become a
freedom fighter and to fight for justice for the marginalized and
disenfranchised.
In 1999, New York Times
columnist Bob Herbert wrote a beautiful piece titled “Angela’s
Champion.” One of the cases that caught Justice Marks's attention in
The New York Law Journal was that of Angela Thompson, who was
arrested in 1988 at age 17 for selling two ounces of cocaine to an
undercover cop. She had no previous record and was acting at the
direction of her uncle and legal guardian, who was a drug dealer.
Nevertheless, under the strict terms of the Rockefeller drug laws,
Ms. Thompson was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. When
Judge Marks read about the case he knew it was a case of injustice
and immediately began the process of successfully launching a
campaign to acquire executive clemency for Angela from former New
York Gov. George Pataki.
His close friends called him
“The Judge.” He had a quick wit, even in his late years. He was
also a poet and from time to time, especially in front of an
audience; use to love to recite his often political laced poetry.
Political comedian, Randy Credico, who recently ran against Sen.
Charles Schumer, and I were honored to have dinner with The Judge
every Friday night for years. We often discussed the concept of
justice over a martini and he schooled us well. Credico, in
remembering The Judge told me, “Judge Marks used his power to save
rather than destroy lives and was the embodiment of the word
justice. He was a servant and not the master of concept of justice.
Unlike the men and women who wear robes who hypocritically pass
judgment of the poor, the disaffected and the hopeless in the
current base, corrupt and Kafkaesque world of criminal justice.
Judge Marks served God's natural law rather than man's artificial
law”.
Terrance Stevens’ case was
another that Judge Marks took on. The Judge helped Stevens, who at
the time of his arrest was paralyzed from muscular dystrophy, secure
clemency from Gov. Pataki. But being confined to a wheel chair did
not stop the State of New York from sentencing him to 15 years to
life. The judge in Stevens’ case did not want to sentence him under
the mandatory provisions of the law but he had no choice. While
serving his sentence at Green Haven Correctional Facility in
Stormville, an article appeared in the NY Times detailing Stevens’
plight. Judge Marks wrote him and a friendship developed, leading
Marks to champion his cause.
Judge Jerry Marks had a great
impact, not only on the people he helped but also the hundreds of
lives that were saved through the Rockefeller reforms he advocated
for. He is gone but his good deeds as a procurer of justice will let
his spirit live on forever.
Judge Marks was the loving husband of Julie and the devoted father of Gail
and the late Lorna and dear father-in-law of Neil and Joseph and cherished
grandfather of Kyle, Kane and Casey. Funeral services will be held at Frank E.
Campbell Funeral Home, 1076 Madison Avenue (81st St. NYC) on 3/13/11/ at 3:30pm.
Officials recently
shut down part of the Nassau County Crime Lab
because it was discovered that a half dozen drug cases
had been subjected to incorrect analyses. District
Attorney Kathleen Rice might be compelled by law to
retest all drug cases, including sales and possession,
dating back from 2007. The number of cases is startling.
It is estimated that 4,000 drug convictions would have
to be reviewed. DA Rice has called on an outside agency.
Experts say that it is very hard or impossible to
prosecute cases that involve the dealing and possession
of drugs when an incorrect analysis is conducted.
Attorneys for defendants say that innocent people could
have been jailed because of this. William Gibney, a
lawyer with the Legal Aid Society who was instrumental
in reforming the Rockefeller Drug Laws, said, "These
convictions have a serious problem."
DA Rice said her office is prepared to give
information about cases affected to defense attorneys
but it will be up to defendants and their lawyers to
request re-testing. But when I asked Roland Acevedo, a
practicing criminal defense attorney based in NYC, he
told me that "a prosecutor has a responsibility to do
the right thing. The DA's office should take the steps
to notify all potential defendants or their counsel who
may be impacted by the discovery of this incident."
In an appearance on Good Day New York on
Wednesday, DA Rice admitted that it's possible that an
individual currently in jail may not belong there due to
problems in the drug testing lab. "We believe there may
be errors in the quantitative analysis. A lot of drugs
are cut with other substances," said Rice.
According to
news sources, the lab troubles were known but
unreported. The problems started back in December of
2010 when the Mineola crime lab at police headquarters
was placed on probation. A state forensic oversight
agency found 15 serious failures to comply with storing
and testing procedures.
The Nassau County DA has said that that only 16
defense motions seeking judicial reviews or reopening of
drug cases have been filed. But this is understating the
magnitude of the problem. If the crime lab was tainted
for dozens, the scandal is likely much larger than just
the sixteen cases identified so far. Just last year, the
crime lab in San Francisco was shut down because of
evidence tampering and theft of drugs from the lab. The
scandal undermined public trust in both the police and
the office of the prosecutor.
Defense attorneys believe that this is just the
beginning and the discovery of many cases will occur
that could in theory lead to procuring new trials for a
majority of those convicted by the tainted evidence. New
trials are a very costly procedure, especially at a time
when Nassau County's economic health is so bad the state
has seized control of the county's finances.
DA Rice recently ran for Gov. Cuomo's former position
as state Attorney General, and in appearance after
appearance she strongly defended her support of the
Rockefeller Drug Law reforms. What will happen if
hundreds or thousands of people are found to be
wrongfully convicted because of tainted evidence? Will
DA Rice pursue justice for dozens, hundreds, perhaps
thousands of people who may be wrongfully incarcerated?
Can Nassau County afford retrials? And can New York
afford to allow people wrongfully convicted to remain
incarcerated? Stay tuned.
The price of freedom from an overly harsh sentence in Mississippi?
Apparently, one kidney. That's the promise Mississsippi governor Haley
Barbour extracted from Gladys Scott--that she would donate a kidney to
her sister Jamie in order for both of them to have their sentences
commuted. The sisters had served nearly 17 years in prison for an armed
robbery worth $11, and a prolonged grassroots effort finally paid off in
achieving their freedom--though it may have more to do with Barbour's
attempt at making up for his recent approving comments about the White
Citizens' Councils. Joining us to discuss are Anthony Papa, author of 15
to Life and manager of media relations at the Drug Policy Alliance, and
from Mississippi, Jaribu Hill, executive director of the Mississippi
Workers' Center for Human Rights.
Flash! papa goes on a rescue mission to save the scott
sisters!
HUFFINGTON POST - BY ANTHONY
PAPA Manager of
Media Relations, Drug Policy Alliance
At long last the Scott sisters will be free! Mississippi
Governor Haley Barbour in a totally bizarre act of compassion,
based on public pressure, used his commutation powers to grant
the sisters their freedom.
Governor Haley Barbour suspended the life sentences of Gladys
and Jamie Scott, two African-American sisters who had served 16
years in prison for taking part in an $11 armed robbery. The
women have always maintained their innocence. For many years
civil rights advocates have called for the release the sisters.
The case was
brought to my attention a few years ago by Nancy Lockart,
who spearheaded the campaign to free the Scott sisters.
Although I give thanks to the Governor for this act I have to
question the stipulation that in order for Jamie Scott to be
free she must donate a kidney to her ailing sister. An
estimation was made that determined that dialysis treatments
would cost the state of Mississippi $200,000 a year which did
not include other treatments. If the operation could not be
performed because of medical reasons they would revisit Jamie's
stipulation but she would not go back to prison. In a radio
interview Barbour described the suspension of sentences as the
equivalent of parole. Any violation of the law could therefore
land them back in prison.
So, in my view the act of compassion turns out to be a cost
efficient way of ridding Mississippi with an astronomical
medical bill. Barbour's twisted view of compassion and moral
sleight of hand should not come as a surprise. Recently Barbour
found himself in hot water after his attempt to revise the
shameful legacy of the segregationist, Council of Conservative
Citizens, originally called, White Citizen's Councils.
Medical ethicists say suspending a prison sentence on the
condition that one sister give the other a kidney is a "quid pro
quo" and threatens the ethical underpinnings of living donation
laws. So in reality Gov. Barbour might have broken the law.
Gov. Barbour, who by the way aspires to run for President of
the United States confirmed my thoughts by saying "The
Mississippi Department of Corrections believes the sisters no
longer pose a threat to society, Their incarceration is no
longer necessary for public safety or rehabilitation, and Jamie
Scott's medical condition creates a substantial cost to the
State of Mississippi."
Bob Herbert of the New York Times recently wrote
about the case of the Scott Sisters in a piece titled "'So
Utterly Inhumane." He said, "This is Mississippi we're talking
about, a place that in many ways has not advanced much beyond
the Middle Ages." I agree one hundred percent. instead of giving
the Scott Sisters their freedom through a true compassionate act
of clemency, Governor Barbour instead used the barbaric
stipulation that freedom in this case is the cost of a kidney.
I wish the Scott Sisters the best in their regaining their
freedom and hope they lead fruitful and productive lives. And I
pray that Governor Barbour does not use the freedom for organs
tradeoff anymore in the future to save the state of Mississippi
tax dollars.
Anthony Papa is the author of 15 to Life and the Manager of
Media Relations for the Drug Policy Alliance
One of my earliest memories is sitting on
the couch with my mom as she read
Charlotte's Web to me and my sister.
Thinking back on the book, I don't remember
all of the details, but I do remember that
Charlotte (the spider) was helping save her
friend Wilbur (the pig) from being killed. I
remembered there was a mischievous rat named
Templeton that I thought was cool. I also
remember me and my sister crying as my mom
read us the end of the book.
I now have a four-year-old girl named Eva
and was nostalgic and excited to introduce
her to Charlotte's Web.
While sitting on the couch with Eva,
watching the movie Charlotte's Web
35 years after reading the book, I realized
that in addition to being a great
storyteller, the author E.B. White was also
a visionary and an activist. Watching the
movie as an activist who does media work for
the Drug Policy Alliance, I now have a whole
new lens to look at Charlotte and her
strategy to save her dear friend Wilbur.
Wilbur is the cute little pig who finds out
from his fellow farm animals that he is
going to be killed and eaten, because that
is what happens to pigs. Wilbur can't
believe that they are going to kill him.
Wilbur turns to the wise spider Charlotte
and asks if it is true. Charlotte promises
Wilbur that she will protect him and that he
won't be killed.
Wow! Hearing this story as a parent, I now
see that this is a pretty intense, scary
story! I have to admit that realizing that
Wilbur is going to be killed because we eat
bacon is kinda of a wake-up call that gets
me thinking...
Anyways, how is Charlotte going to protect
and save her friend? Charlotte ends up
spinning a web that says "Some Pig". The
family who owns the farm is blown away by
the "message" in the web and calls the
neighbors. Soon the town is buzzing. After a
couple of months the news wears off and
Charlotte again
spins a web that says "Terrific". The
family calls the local newspaper. The next
thing there is a photo of Wilbur under the
"Terrific" web on the front page of the
paper. The crowds come, the family decides
Wilbur is special and Wilbur is saved.
Charlotte (and E.B. White) realized that the
only way to save Wilbur's life was to make
people care about Wilbur. If someone is
nameless, we can kill them, stuff them in a
jail cell or do other terrible things to
them. If we hear someone's story, hear about
their dreams, their histories, their
families, it moves us and we care.
While watching Charlotte's Web, I couldn't
help but think of my friend and colleague
Anthony Papa. Anthony Papa is a New Yorker
who was sentenced to 15 years for a first
time, non-violent drug offense. Papa's life
was ruined when a "friend" convinced him to
pass an envelope of 4 ounces of cocaine for
which he was to make $500.
While in prison Papa found his passion for
art and became a painter. Papa's greatest
piece is a
haunting self-portrait of himself
looking into a mirror. You look into his
eyes and feel the agony and despair from a
man who realizes he is going to spend the
best years of his life in a cage. Papa's
self-portrait ends up showing in the Whitney
Museum. Papa (like Charlotte) realizes that
the way he is going to free himself is by
telling his story and having people see more
than just a number.
Papa sits at his typewriter, writes his
story and sends it into the local
Westchester Journal. Papa then uses this
humanizing piece to get other stories and
before long there is a major feature in
The New York Times. The story builds
and builds until Governor Pataki grants him
clemency. After spending 12 years in jail,
Papa was literally able to paint his way to
freedom.
That is only the first half of the inspiring
story. When most people get out of jail,
they want to put the nightmare behind them
and never want think about jail again.
Instead, Papa ends up starting a group with
activist, comedian Randy Credico called
Mothers of the New York Disappeared. They
understood (like Charlotte) that to change
the way New Yorkers looked at people behind
bars, people had to see a whole picture of
these people, not only their jail numbers.
They organized families of people behind
bars. They would organize vigils and actions
with family members holding up photos of
their loved ones. While the "nameless" were
considered drug dealers, they became real
people when their families told their
stories. These weren't "kingpins" or
queenpins"; these were moms and dads,
brothers and sisters, who loved their kids
and families and were rotting away in jail
because they had a substance abuse problem
or were desperate to make money and because
New York had draconian mandatory minimum
sentences under the Rockefeller drug laws.
After years of sharing people's stories,
generating moving TV segments and feature
stories, New Yorkers changed the way they
looked at people behind bars for
drug-related offenses. Watching a personal
piece about a mom being locked up for 15
years, away from her family, because of a
mistake she made or because she has a drug
problem moved hearts more than any
statistics or policy papers. In 2008, after
35 years, the inhumane, ineffective and
racist drug laws were finally reformed.
There is a
picture in my office of Anthony Papa
giving Governor Paterson a hug at the
Rockefeller Reform bill signing. It makes me
emotional to think about Anthony Papa's
story. Papa spent 12 years in a cage because
of one mistake and because of the way our
society treats people who use drugs. He lost
his family and freedom. He was able to
regain his freedom through his art, activism
and brains. He then used his freedom to help
free some of the people he left behind.
I am moved by Anthony Papa. I think E.B.
White would be moved by Anthony Papa's story
too.
Tony Newman is the director of
media relations at the Drug Policy Alliance
(www.drugpolicy.org)
On Tuesday five students were arrested for allegedly selling
drugs at Columbia University. In a press release distributed by
the Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor, headed by
Bridgette Brennan, the bust was dubbed "Operation Ivy League."
It was described as the culmination of a five-month police sting
where they planted a baby-faced looking undercover cop to
purchase drugs from the students.
This bust immediately brought back memories to me of a
similar drug bust in 2004 involving kids in Berkshire County in
Massachusetts. At that time another baby face detective,
employed by the Drug Task Force, was assigned the duty of going
undercover to buy drugs from kids who hung out in a parking lot.
Merchants had complained to police about the kids. For months
the undercover cop hung out with the kids, even allegedly
drinking with them, while purchasing drugs. The undercover cop
even talked about how he just lost his girlfriend to get the
kids to feel sorry for him. This resulted in the arrest of 19
kids. One of them, 18-year-old
Mitchell Lawrence, received two years for the sale of one
joint. Mitchell was set to graduate from high school that
spring. Instead, he watched his fellow classmates graduate from
his prison cell.
So let me get this straight--the baby-face detective went to
Columbia University and into the student dorms and made 31 buys
over a five-month period that got a small amount of assorted
drugs, including pot and a handful of pills. Two of the students
claim that they sold the drugs to pay for their tuition. Another
student, Christopher Coles, told the NY Daily News that
the cops are exaggerating. And why wouldn't they? They always
do.
I remember when I got arrested for a drug sale back in 1985.
One Westchester newspaper headline screamed "Biggest Bust in Mt.
Vernon History." This was used by the prosecutor to try and blow
up my case and convince the judge I was a kingpin. But I wasn't.
I was a small fry who made a mistake, and because of the
draconian nature of the drug laws, I was sentenced to 15 years
to life for a first time non-violent sale of four ounces of
cocaine. My part of the take was $500 for delivering the
envelope of coke to undercover cops in a sting operation. My
life was ruined; I lost my family and everything I had in life.
While the "Ivy League" bust is generating a wave of press and
Bridgette Brennan is loving her 15 minutes of fame on national
TV, the reality is that these busts are all hype and PR and will
do nothing to stop drug use on our campuses or in the city at
large.
So I ask Brennan to remember any youthful discretion she
might have made when she was young. The five students arrested
have their entire lives in front of them. Please don't let one
youthful mistake ruin their lives forever. After all, we are
talking about Columbia students, not Colombia kingpins.
Anthony Papa is the author of 15 to Life and the
Manager of Media Relations for the Drug Policy Alliance.
ANTHONY PAPA
is an artist, writer, noted advocate against the War on Drugs and co-founder
of the Mothers of the New York Disappeared. His opinion pieces about the
drug war have appeared in news sources across the country; he's a frequent
public speaker and college lecturer on his art and criminal justice issues
and he is currently a communications specialist for Drug Policy Alliance in
New York City.
In the early 2Ks there was a great deal of mainstream media attention and
celebrity participation from the likes of Sting, George Soros and Russell
Simmons in the Drug Policy Alliance's campaign to repeal the outdated
Rockefeller Drug Laws, which subjected first-time, non-violent drug
offenders to lengthy or even lifetime prison sentences. In spite of the lull
in media buzz around the issue these days, advocates like Anthony Papa
remain vigilant in their commitment to repeal Rockefeller.
On today's show Anthony shares his personal experience serving twelve years
at Sing Sing prison in upstate New York, for carrying a small amount of
narcotics and how discovering his artistic talent for painting while in
lockup eventually led him to freedom and a life of great purpose.
If all the radio stations are following the syndication schedule to a T, the
program should broadcast as follows:
Sunday WEOS (Geneva, NY) 6-7 PM
Monday WXOJ (N. Hampton, MA) 7-8 AM
Monday WYAP (Clay, WV) flex time check local listing
Tuesday WRFN (Nashville, TN) 3-4 PM Central Time
Tuesday WYAP (Clay, WV) flex time check local listing (encore broadcast)
Wednesday WSIA (Staten Island, NY) 10-11 AM
Wednesday WUOW (Oneonta, NY) 10-11 AM
In 1985 I was sentenced to 15
years to life under the Rockefeller Drug Laws of New York State.
I struggled to survive in the maximum security hell hole, Sing
Sing, and did many things I was not proud of to stay alive.
Being in prison for many years had drained me spiritually and
emotionally. There were times when the only emotion I was aware
of was a quiet, smoldering rage. Because of the barriers I'd
built to survive, I'd become desensitized, and I knew it. There
was still a part of me that could see myself from the outside
in, and what I saw I didn't like: a callous, bitter individual
consumed with the injustices of the world. I knew that I needed
to heal if I ever wanted to interact normally with people upon
release. I had some insight into human behavior because of the
bachelor's degree in Behavioral Science I'd earned from Mercy
College in 1993. The problem was, the program was over and I had
to serve an additional 7 years.
The walls of negativity were beginning to close in on me again
when a friend told me about a unique program he'd recently
joined known as the New York Theological Seminary, a one-year,
42-credit program that afforded a select group of Sing Sing
prisoners the opportunity to earn a Masters of Professional
Studies in Ministry. Opened in Sing Sing in 1983, the New York
Theological Seminary was the only program of its kind in the
country, a graduate-level religious studies program that
required a four-year degree from an accredited university to
join. The program demanded intense academic scholarship and a
commitment to personal growth. Each year, hundreds of prisoners
applied but only fifteen were accepted. I was fortunate to be
chosen by Dr. George "Bill" Webber, the longstanding director of
the program that was a fearless champion of prisoners' rights.
Under his leadership, the seminary program provided theological
education to prisoners at Sing Sing.
The program has graduated hundreds of men, many of whom are now
social workers, pastors, prison reform advocates and educators.
Few have ever returned to prison. Of those serving life
sentences, many have devoted their lives to teaching and
ministry in prison. When state funding for College programs
ended, Dr. Webber organized Rising Hope, a program which
provides college level education to inmates who have received
their GED.
Rev. Webber brought together men of diverse religious and ethnic
backgrounds to this program. A recurrent theme was that of "koinonia,"
or authentic community. Koinonia encompasses the belief that we
must reject the differences between us to create a society where
class distinction is nonexistent and the poisons of racism,
sexism and nationalism disappear. He taught me that the core of
the seminary teachings was based on liberation theology, rooted
in "praxis," or action as an essential ingredient in all
theological method. Its hermeneutical approach argues that we
cannot begin to understand, criticize, or verify the meaning of
scripture or tradition unless we are approaching it from the
actual practice of liberation, from concrete involvement in
trying to make the world better.
For the first few months of the program, I struggled to find a
foothold. I considered dropping out, but Bill Webber urged me to
persevere. He suggested that I sharpen my skills as an observer
of human behavior because in learning how to deal with others, I
would gain mastery over myself. I would learn to understand my
emotions, he said, and to feel again. In every confrontation I
faced, whether with a prisoner, a correction officer or an
outsider, I tried to apply what I was learning in the seminary
to gain insight into my fellow man and the world around me. For
the first time in years, I felt empathy. Bill had successfully
taught me how to be a human being once again. In 1997 I received
executive clemency from Governor George Pataki. Upon my release
I became an activist and have fought endlessly for reform of
draconian drug laws that put hundreds of thousands of
non-violent individuals in prison for many years.
In 2004, the New York Theological Seminary established the
George W. Webber Chair in Urban Ministry in his honor. On May
19, 2000, he received the Union Medal from Union Theological
Seminary. The award included these words: "George Webber, your
passion for faith-based justice has helped shape the perspective
of several generations of Protestant clergy engaged in urban
ministry. Your imaginative grasp of the problems that confront
an embattled urban church in an expanding and often violent city
has given new meaning to the concept of Christian mission."
Bill Webber, a spiritual father to many men behind and beyond
the walls, will be surely missed. Memorial services are
tentatively planned in Sorrento , Maine in August and in New
York City in October.
Special Prosecutor Bridget Brennan says dealers sell 'cocaine and heroin,
but say they are 'addicted.''
·
The revamped Rockefeller drug laws have let hardened drug dealers escape
jail by claiming they're marijuana addicts, the city's top drug prosecutor
says.
The goal
was to help addicts who sold drugs or committed petty crimes to support
their habits, but Special Prosecutor Bridget Brennan said dealers with
multiple convictions for non-violent offenses are taking advantage of the
reforms.
A Bloods
member with two felony drug convictions was charged last October with
overseeing a cocaine operation in a Brooklyn housing project. Instead of
prison he's in a drug treatment program for marijuana abuse, after years of
denying he ever used drugs.
A couple
arrested for major cocaine dealing was recorded in a phone call discussing
smoking pot to buttress their claim of marijuana addiction.
"If they
do wanna be dumb and do offer you a program, you urine need to be dirty,"
the man says to his wife in the call from Rikers Island. "What they don't
realize that they revised, revised Rockefeller drug law, that's why
therefore selling drugs is almost legal."
Brennan
said her office fought treatment for people who were "not addicts, but
businessmen drug dealers, major managers, gang members ...
"It's
sending the wrong message, not only to the individual defendant who thinks
he may be able to game the system, but to the community at large."
Drug law
reform advocates say Brennan is using a few examples to make the program
look bad.
"She's
tooth-and-nail against the Rockefeller laws being changed," said Anthony
Papa, communications specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance. "She is taking
one case and blowing it up ...to affect thousands of other people who should
get treatment instead of jail."
"Special
Narcotics still measures success by the number of people they put in jail
rather than effectiveness in reducing crime," said William Gibney of the
Legal Aid Society.
Last
year, the state repealed most of its mandatory minimum sentences for drug
offenses imposed in the 1970s under the tough Rockefeller laws.
That
allowed the resentencing or release of some prisoners serving exceptionally
long sentences, and expanding treatment as an alternative to incarceration.
Judicial
diversion, as it is called, allows a judge to dismiss a case against a drug
defendant as long as the offender pleads guilty and completes treatment.
Brennan
said 217 defendants applied for judicial diversion since the law took effect
Oct. 7.
Of
those, 158 were referred to a judge, and her office objected to 90 of them.
Twenty-seven were granted diversion anyway.
Almost
half the people who asked for judicial diversion claimed to be marijuana
abusers.
"They
are selling cocaine and heroin, but say they are 'addicted' to marijuana,"
Brennan said.
Nestor
Ferreiro, chief of the Bronx district attorney's narcotics bureau, said
"some people are trying to take advantage of the law." But, he added, "the
judges and the diversion staff are pretty good at catching it."
In
Queens, 11 people sought diversion. Prosecutors objected successfully to
eight of them, a spokeswoman said. The majority claimed to be pot addicts.
Police
sources said the Bloods gang member in the Brooklyn case was arrested with
49 others in Operation Tidal Wave, a three-month probe launched after some
gang-related shootings near the Coney Island Houses.
A cop
involved in the investigation was shocked the man was allowed to go to
treatment.
"He was
a manager on the street," the officer said. "If you wanted to purchase
narcotics you had to go through him."
Brennan,
who said she wanted the man to get at least two years in jail, doesn't blame
the judges, saying they are dealing with "a very vague statute."
Although
the couple recorded in the phone call were ruled ineligible for diversion,
she called the conversation "troubling."
"The
assumption was all you do is smoke weed and get a program," she said. "It
shows people on the street know how the law changed."
Nassau DA and state Attorney General hopeful Kathleen Rice is
taking more heat over her past views on the repeal of the Rockefeller Drug Laws,
a subject she's tangled on with rival fellow Democrat Eric Schneiderman.
Schneiderman and Rice traded barbs on the subject over the
past few days after
Schneiderman sent Rice a letter highlighting their "divergent" views on the
issue (read: I'm right; you're wrong) and
Team Rice struck back by calling Schneiderman's broadside a mere political
stunt.
The letter below, addressed to Rice, is signed by Anthony
Papa of the Drug Policy Alliance, Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat, Councilman
Robert Jackson, Chairman of the Council's Black, Latino and Asian Caucus and
Councilwoman Melissa Mark-Viverito, Co-Chair of the Council's Progressive
Caucus, as well as state Sen. Jose Peralta and Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez.
(Some of the aforementioned have endorsed Schneiderman, btw.)
The takeaway:
"We are writing because we have been dismayed by your
effort in recent days to mislead voters about your record and position on
Rockefeller Drug Laws, and are respectfully asking that you cease claiming to
have been a strong supporter of the landmark 2009 Rockefeller Drug Law reforms.
The truth is that not only did you lobby your Republican
senator to oppose these measures, but as recently as last month, you even
continued to oppose the core provision of the reform package: giving judges
discretion in sentencing decisions."
The letter comes as state Sen. Craig Johnson offered his
stalwart support of Rice (read his statement after the jump.)
State Sen. Eric Schneiderman is firing back at his Attorney
General primary rival, Nassau County DA Kathleen Rice, in their
ongoing battle over the Rockefeller Drug Laws, a key issue for many
liberal Democratic primary voters that opponents of the law say
unfairly targets people of color.
Rice had said Schneiderman distorted her words and is getting
validation from other lawmakers about whether she fought against
reforms to how first-time non-violent felony drug offdenders
to shift sentencing from prosecutors to judges.
But Scheiderman's camp sent out a letter from a group of anti-RDL
activists, including reform-fighter Anthony Papa, who was convicted
under the laws.
"The truth is that not only did you lobby your Republican senator to
oppose these measures, but as recently as last month, you even
continued to oppose the core provision of the reform package: giving
judges discretion in sentencing decisions," the letter says.
"After a watered-down version of reform without the judicial
sentencing provision was passed by the Republicans in 2004, Andrew
Cuomo called the bill 'half-a-loaf,' saying, The pressure is for
Rockefeller reform and that's not what this is. This is not judicial
(sentencing) discretion. This is not significantly reducing the
burdensome length of punishment...This is simply not what we've been
working for all these years.'
"However, on May 17 of this year, your campaign continued to defend
these onerous sentencing rules, saying, 'As we have said, the
District Attorney was concerned that removing prosecutors from the
process would weaken the community's voice in these decisions. As
the community's advocate, the District Attorney often knows the most
about a defendant's background and is in a unique position to
represent the community in determining which defendants receive
treatment and which for-profit drug dealers go to jail.'
"Stated simply, your opposition to this key judicial sentencing
provision means that you did not – and indeed, currently do not –
support the historic Rockefeller Drug Law reform package of 2009."
The letter was signed by three City Councilmembers, as well as
State Sen. Jose Peralta, a Schneiderman backer, and Assemblyman
Adriano Espaillat, who's running for Schneiderman's seat.
The line about Cuomo is not accidental, since much has been made
of reports that the current AG prefers Rice to succeed him (although
he has insisted this isn't so).
State Sen. Eric Schneiderman, who's in a field of five looking to
be the Democratic nominee for Andrew Cuomo's current Attorney
General job, came out swinging today at rival Kathleen Rice over the
Rockefeller Drug Laws - a key issue with a swath of Democratic
primary voters.
Schneiderman described their "divergent" positions on the issues,
and said the Nassau County DA "lobbied Senate Republicans to oppose
the reforms" he has helped work for to the laws, which many
advocates have called draconian.
Schneiderman challenged her to a debate on the "honest
disagreement on policy," including a central reform proposal about
giving judges discretion to decide on prison sentences for
first-time, non-violent drug offenders convicted on felony counts.
That duty used to lie totally with prosecutors.
And late in the day, he claimed success.
Rice - who is widely believed to be Cuomo's preferred successor,
although he's denied he's made a choice - responded through a
campaign staffer, saying she "supported the reforms and she looks
forward to continuing to discuss their shared beliefs on jail
diversion" for non-violent first-time drug offenders.
Her team added that she was recommending treatment over jail for
drug offenders "long before the legislature passed these
reforms....people see this distortion of the District Attorney's
record for exactly what it is: a desperate political attack."
But Schneiderman did a round robin, saying the "look forward"
portion of the letter was an agreement to the debate and his team
said he would "immediately work with the other campaigns now...to
arrange logistics."
Nassau DA and state Attorney General hopeful Kathleen Rice is
taking more heat over her past views on the repeal of the
Rockefeller Drug Laws, a subject she's tangled on with rival
fellow Democrat Eric Schneiderman.
Schneiderman and Rice traded barbs on the subject over the
past few days after
Schneiderman sent Rice a letter highlighting their
"divergent" views on the issue (read: I'm right; you're wrong)
and
Team Rice struck back by calling Schneiderman's broadside a
mere political stunt.
The letter below, addressed to Rice, is signed by Anthony
Papa of the Drug Policy Alliance, Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat,
Councilman Robert Jackson, Chairman of the Council's Black,
Latino and Asian Caucus and Councilwoman Melissa Mark-Viverito,
Co-Chair of the Council's Progressive Caucus, as well as state
Sen. Jose Peralta and Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez. (Some of the
aforementioned have endorsed Schneiderman, btw.)
The takeaway:
"We are writing because we have been dismayed by your
effort in recent days to mislead voters about your record and
position on Rockefeller Drug Laws, and are respectfully asking
that you cease claiming to have been a strong supporter of the
landmark 2009 Rockefeller Drug Law reforms.
The truth is that not only did you lobby your Republican
senator to oppose these measures, but as recently as last month,
you even continued to oppose the core provision of the reform
package: giving judges discretion in sentencing decisions."
The letter comes as state Sen. Craig Johnson offered his
stalwart support of Rice (read his statement after the jump.)
A new video
featuring Sting, George Soros and Montel Williams and Tony Papa <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0A1XTlJAio>
Each of them - like so many of us - believes that our drug policies must be
grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights.
FLASH! MArch 3, 2010 Gov. Paterson who helped us
tremendously in reforming the rockefeller drug laws is getting a raw deal my the
media who want him to resign - just say no Gov. paterson!!!!!!!
Recently, the New York Times
published what was supposed to be a spectacular
expose about New York Gov. David Paterson and his
administration. Instead many media commentators like
Howard Kurtz, a media observer for the Washington
Post and host of CNN's Reliable Sources,
said on his Twitter account Wednesday that the Times
report on the aide "caps a shameful period of media
outlets trumpeting rumors about the governor."
While I
agree with Kurtz's analysis, I also think the article
touched on an extremely important issue. It talked about
Gov. Paterson's closest confidant in his administration,
David Johnson, a top aide, who the New York Times
painted as someone with a criminal record who should not
be in the position he is. Johnson sold cocaine to a
undercover cop when he was 18 years old. Gov. Paterson
responded, saying "David Johnson has demonstrated, over
the course of his adult life, that people can change
their personal circumstances and achieve success when
given a second chance. I will not turn my back on
someone because of mistakes made as a teenager."
As an ex-offender who served hard time, I believe
that Gov. Paterson should be applauded for giving David
Johnson the opportunity to excel. There are many
roadblocks that exist when people with criminal records,
mostly ex-offenders, try to reenter society.
Statistically, it is well known that if you wind up in
prison and you are fortunate enough to regain your
freedom, odds are, you will be going back sometime soon.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 67
percent of those set free return to prison within three
years. There are many obstacles one meets that can
contribute to this startling statistic. Carrying the
stigma of being an ex-offender is often debilitating.
From obtaining employment and housing, to establishing
relationships, life becomes difficult at best.
Ex-offenders struggle to shed the memories of
imprisonment after paying their debts to society. But
the stigma of having a criminal record follows them
around for life. They face a daunting array of
counterproductive and frustrating legal and practical
barriers, including state and federal laws and policy
that hinder their ability to quality for a job or get a
higher education. But these policies that stigmatize
those with criminal records are now being challenged, as
is the case in New Mexico, where legislation has passed
that will remove unfair barriers to employment for those
who have criminal convictions. That bill now awaits Gov.
Richardson's signature. No longer will job applicants
have to check a box on a job application alerting
potential employers that they have a criminal
conviction.
Upon reentering society ex-offenders will find a host
of problems preventing them from successfully
reintegrating. These include not being able to find
employment or secure housing, dealing with substance
abuse and mental health problems, difficulty in
reestablishing and developing relationships. All of
these make life exceedingly difficult and often
debilitating. This, coupled with dealing with issues
such as institutional dependency and carrying the
baggage of incarceration, results in the ex-offender
returning to prison either on a parole violation or a
new sentence.
All these above mentioned factors results in
preventing the returning prisoner to become lawful tax
paying citizens and inhibit their ability to take care
of themselves and their families.
David Johnson's ability to overcome the circumstances
of his past is remarkable and should be attributed to
the help he received from people like Gov. Paterson who
believe in second chances. The Times, the paper
of record, released a "bombshell" that turned out to be
nothing more than a dud.
Anthony Papa is the communications specialist for
the drug policy alliance and author of a forthcoming
book "This Side of Freedom - Life after Lockdown"
--------
FLASH! 3/1/10
Cameron Douglas who is an addict is facing 10 years
in prison. To read more about this go to my
Huffington Post blog
According to the
NY Daily News, lawyers of Michael Douglas'
son, Cameron, say that their client's drug problems stem
from his upbringing by his famous father. They also say
that to hear his lawyers tell it, "Cameron Douglas never
had a chance growing up in the shadow of a rich,
powerful, jet-setting dad."
Cameron has a serious
heroin addiction and emotional problems that stem from
"notoriety that is not due to any acts of his own but by
dint of birth and a difficult upbringing," his defense
lawyer Dan Gitner argued.
The judge did not buy the story and denied bail last
week at his hearing. Cameron Douglas has to wait until
April 14 when his sentencing hearing is scheduled to
find out what his future holds for him. Cameron is
facing a 10 year sentence for dealing methamphetamine.
In the
April issue of Vanity Fair Magazine Michael
Douglas admits that he put his own career over fathering
his son Cameron. The piece goes on to say that though
Douglas isn't one for public hand-wringing, he can't
help but see his own role in Cameron's fate.
We may never know what caused Cameron's addiction.
Maybe he did suffer because of a dysfunctional
upbringing because of his father's fame, or maybe not?
But one thing is for certain -- Cameron needs treatment
not prison. It's a waste of tax dollars and human life
to place non-violent drug addicted individuals like
Cameron Douglas in prison.
Our 40-plus-year war on drugs has stifled the open
debate this country should be having about addiction and
how best to deal with it. Treatment is valid for
fighting the demons of addiction. It is also an
effective tool in overcoming the government's use of
incarceration and punitive measures in response to
nonviolent drug law offenses stemming from addiction.
Join the Facebook cause to send a message to
Cameron's sentencing judge to give him treatment instead
of prison
Flash! 12/11/09/ Despite the recent reforms
the district attorneys led by Special Narcotics Prosecutor
Bridget G.
Brennan keep feeding trash
papers like the NY Post and the Daily News nonsense that the flood gates of hell
have opened because eligible drug offenders are being released. This is
not the case.
The dismantling of the Rockefeller Drug Laws is
picking up steam. The New York State Assembly held a key hearing on Dec. 8 to
press forward with implementation of the reforms, soliciting feedback from
courts, treatment providers and community-based programs on their readiness and
resource needs to carry out the groundbreaking new law.
The reform, which took effect on Oct. 7,
eliminated mandatory minimum sentences for most drug offenses, restored
discretion to judges to sentence individuals to probation, drug treatment or
other alternatives to incarceration, and allows approximately 1,000 people
convicted under the old Rockefeller Drug Laws to apply for resentencing.
At the hearing, lawmakers explored a wide range
of issues related to the Rockefeller reform, including: What steps has the court
system taken to prepare for and implement the new judicial diversion program,
and to ensure that persons who are resentenced have access to community-based
reentry programs? Are there sufficient community-based treatment programs
available to serve individuals sentenced to treatment or probation, or those
released from prison? What are the barriers faced by formerly incarcerated
individuals with a history of substance abuse in obtaining public benefits,
medical assistance, employment and affordable and stable housing?
"These reforms will allow people to reclaim
their dignity as we shift from a punitive criminal justice model to a much
needed holistic public health framework," said Shreya Mandal, Mitigation
Specialist for the Legal Aid Society. "Now it is time to see this reform through
by empowering formerly incarcerated individuals with comprehensive re-entry
planning. Reform also calls for revamping outdated modes of drug treatment, both
in and out of prison, and for making progressive changes in how we respond to
addiction."
Under more limited reforms to the Rockefeller
laws signed by Gov. George Pataki in 2004 and 2005 - which authorized
resentencing and eliminated life sentences for individuals convicted of certain
drug felonies - 584 individuals were released from prison, and just 9 percent of
these people returned to jail, far lower than the state's 39 percent overall
recidivism rate. These results counter claims made by district attorneys and law
enforcement officials that sentencing reform leads to disaster.
"Opponents of reform try to scare the public
with claims that the 'sky is falling' every time individuals with substance
abuse problems are sent to treatment instead of prison," said Glenn Martin, Vice
President of Development and Public Affairs for The Fortune Society. "But by
working collaboratively among treatment providers and Alternatives to
Incarceration programs, stakeholders can ensure the success of New York's
movement toward a public health and safety approach to drug use."
Enacted in 1973, the Rockefeller Drug Laws were
intended to target drug kingpins, but instead the laws led to the incarceration
of thousands of individuals, mostly people of color, for low-level, nonviolent
offenses, many with no prior criminal records. Approximately 12,000 people
remain locked up for drug offenses in New York State prisons, at a cost of
roughly $45,000 per year to incarcerate a single person, compared to an average
cost of $15,000 per year for drug treatment, which is proven to be 15 times more
effective at reducing crime and recidivism.
As someone who spent 12 years behind bars on
Rockefeller charges and another 12 fighting the inhumane laws, I am thrilled
that the law has been changed, but Rockefeller reform will only be real when
those who are behind bars are allowed to come home and those who need help get
treatment instead of a jail cell.
State Assembly Checks Up on Rockefeller Drug Law Reforms
By Jack Phillips
EpochTimes Staff
NEW YORK—The Rockefeller Drug Law Reform took a step forward Tuesday at a
public hearing in City Hall. Four committees of the State Assembly received
testimony from community-based programs, treatment providers, and courts as
it moves forward with implementation.
The reforms increase judicial oversight of drug cases, says an Assembly
notice. According to the notice, the previous law really wasn't effective in
targeting drug lords, as was intended, but instead affected lower level and
nonviolent drug offenders.
The original legislation was introduced in 1973 under Governor Nelson
Rockefeller. It prevented judges from giving sentences, which allow for
people to go into community-based programs for drug treatment.
Approximately 14,000 people are in New York state prisons incarcerated for
drug offenses, with the costs totaling in the hundreds of millions to
taxpayers.
The reforms place special emphasis on allowing treatment via community-based
programs for people incarcerated on drug charges, as an alternative to
minimum prison sentences.
Anthony Papa, a communications specialist for Drug Policy reform, spent 12
years in Sing-Sing prison. Papa, who wrote "15 to Life," which is an account
on his life in prison, spoke at the event.
In a follow-up press statement, he said he "spent ... another 12 [years]
fighting the inhumane laws," adding that he is "thrilled that the law has
been changed." He feels the Rockefeller laws were unfair to him because he
was convicted of only one drug charge and got a 12-year sentence in prison
as a result.
Legal Aid Society Mitigation Specialist Shreya Mandal commended the reform,
saying it can "allow people to reclaim their dignity" through "empowering
formerly incarcerated individuals with comprehensive re-entry planning."
State Senator Frank Padavan said in September that the reform is problematic
because a section in the provision makes it so drug offenders and dealers
can get up to three offenses on their record and it does not have to be
"disclosed during criminal background checks for positions of trust," he
posted on his Web site.
As a result, Padavan sponsored legislation, dubbed "Repeal the Seal," that
requires criminal transparency in the reform provision.
The reforms could reduce the prison population, potentially costing the
state less money.
A 2008 report released by the Pew Center of the States found that
approximately 1 in 100 people in the U.S. were incarcerated. In 2007, the
state spent $2.6 billion on corrections expenditures. New York's higher
education received $3.5 billion in 2007.
FLash!
Rockefeller reforms officially kick in on october 7th, 2009
David Paterson Does the Right
Thing and Drops the Rock
By Anthony Papa
Today is a historic day for New
York, the day that the Rockefeller Drug Law reforms kicked in,
setting in motion the release of 1,500 low-level nonviolent drug
offenders. The new law also gives judicial discretion back to
judges, who can now determine whether someone should get
treatment for their addiction instead of a jail cell.
I went to Brooklyn's Supreme Court and attended a public event
to mark the milestone. The court room was full of activists,
politicians and service providers that have been working for
years to make this reform happen.
As an activist who has felt the sting of the Rockefeller laws
firsthand -- serving 12 years under a 15-years-to-life sentence
for a first time nonviolent offense -- I understand the full
meaning of these changes. For years the Rockefeller Drug Laws
became a political hot potato that was thoroughly debated, but
nothing was ever done. Bills were submitted, arguments were made
and each political party blamed the other for the impasse. In
the meantime, those imprisoned were rotting away in the gulags
of New York State. No better off were the family members of the
incarcerated, whose hopes and aspirations slowly died as nothing
was done.
Governor Paterson deserves thanks and praise for getting the job
done. He has been instrumental and worked tirelessly, first as a
state senator from Harlem and then as governor, to make these
reforms happen. He said that "today was a day for second
chances." For me, the governor's statement summed up the purpose
of the new reforms. For years the Rockefeller Drug Laws were a
symbol of a purely punitive approach to the problems of the drug
war in New York state, one based on the archaic and outdated
criminal justice mentality of "lock 'em up and throw away the
key." Now, under the guidance of Governor Paterson, New York has
abandoned that failed strategy and committed itself to a new
approach that emphasizes addiction treatment instead of
incarceration.
Now that the laws have been reformed, we have to make sure the
changes are done right. Advocates and service providers have
jumped in and have been working diligently to prepare for
implementation. Legal aid and public defender agencies are
providing legal counsel. Hundreds of social service agencies
around the state have volunteered to provide a broad range of
services to individuals who will be released from prison as a
result of drug law reform. In New York City alone, more than 100
social service groups have agreed to work with legal aid and
public defender agencies to provide services such as housing,
job training and drug treatment to people returning from prison
as a result of the reform.
For 35 years, New York was known as the state with the worst
drug laws. It's time to change directions and make New York
known for having the best practices, based on public health and
safety.
Anthony Papa is the author of 15
To Life and a communications specialist for the Drug Policy
Alliance
ALBANY,
N.Y. (AP) — Hundreds of low-level drug offenders in New York
prisons became eligible Wednesday for shortened sentences or
release under recent changes in state law.
Gov. David
Paterson and lawmakers agreed in April to revise the
Rockefeller-era drug laws, once among the harshest in the
nation and in the vanguard of a movement more than 30 years
ago toward mandatory prison terms. They argued that
lower-level offenders would be better served by addiction
treatment rather than prison.
"Under the
Rockefeller Drug Laws, we did not treat the people who were
addicted. We locked them up," Paterson said Wednesday at the
Brooklyn Court House. "Families were broken, money was
wasted, and we continued to wrestle with a statewide drug
problem."
The
changes that took effect Wednesday allow resentencing some
inmates and give judges discretion to start sending some new
offenders to drug treatment or shock programs instead of
prison.
In 1973,
then-Gov.
Nelson Rockefeller persuaded lawmakers to
pass tough mandatory sentencing laws, saying they were
needed to fight a drug-related "reign of terror." The
strictest provisions were removed in 2004.
New York
Legal Aid Society lawyer Bill Givney said Tuesday his office
has about 270 New York City cases among the roughly 1,100
inmates statewide identified by state officials as eligible
for resentencing and has been examining records to verify
their status. "We're certainly ready to file quite a number
of petitions in the near future," he said.
Once
petitions are filed at the defendants' original criminal
courts, prosecutors have a chance to respond, then it's up
to the judge to schedule a proceeding and rule, Givney said.
The Drug
Policy Alliance, which advocated the changes, has been
meeting with agencies and treatment providers to try to
ensure released inmates get the addiction, mental health and
other services they need to return to life outside prison,
said Gabriel Sayegh, director of the alliance's state
organizing and policy project.
New York's
prisons had 59,053 inmates Wednesday, with another 708 at
the Willard Drug Treatment Center and 80 at a residential
treatment facility for parole violators, corrections
spokeswoman Linda Foglia said. Under another change that
took effect in July, more than 100 inmates, including some
in their 40s, were transferred from general prison
populations to six-month military-style boot camp programs.
This year, New York reformed its landmark Rockefeller drug
laws and experts say the reforms mark a shift in the states from
a strictly punitive drug policy to more of a treatment model.
By Mikel Chavers
Anthony Papa did hard time in Sing Sing, New York’s maximum
security prison, after the judge handed him a 15 years to life
prison sentence for a first-time, nonviolent drug offense under
New York’s notoriously harsh Rockefeller drug laws in 1984.
That was the mandatory minimum sentence for a drug offense
under the laws, the same sentence as for second-degree murder.
“I was a first-time nonviolent offender who made the biggest
mistake of his life in 1984,” Papa said. Desperately needing
money to pay rent, Papa agreed to deliver a package for a man he
met at the bowling alley he frequented.
“I delivered a package of four and a half ounces of cocaine
from the Bronx to Mount Vernon, N.Y., for $500,” he said. “I was
a mule for 500 bucks.”
Papa walked right into a sting operation and was caught by
police.
At the time, New York’s Rockefeller drug laws, enacted in
1973 and named after then-Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, were some of
the harshest in the country and many states followed in New
York’s footsteps enacting harsh drug laws.
“It really started a trend in 1973,” said Gabriel Sayegh,
who directs the State Organizing and Policy Project with the
Drug Policy Alliance advocating for drug law reform.
But for Papa, the laws were more than a trend of the times;
they offered little leeway in a sentence that would ultimately
determine more than a decade of his life.
“Because of mandatory minimum sentencing, the judge didn’t
want to, but he had to sentence me to 15 years to life,” Papa
said.
He wound up serving 12 years before former Gov. George
Pataki pardoned and released him in 1996, largely based on
Papa’s talent for painting developed while he was in prison.
Papa wrote a book in 2004 about his ordeal.
He’s been an advocate for Rockefeller drug reform movement
ever since.
His efforts—and those of many others—met with success when
the Rockefeller drug laws were changed in April. Experts say New
York’s reform signals a shift from a strict policy of jail time
and punishment for drug offenders to more of a treatment model.
That’s something experts say is catching on—particularly in this
down economy when states simply can’t afford to lock up as many
offenders.
“Basically the trend now (is) to more of a treatment model
than a punitive model, where in my case I was treated strictly
punitively,” Papa said. “And now it’s different. Judges have
more discretion. This to me is really big and it’s significant.”
Harsh Drug Laws No Longer Economical
Experts say the Rockefeller drug laws cost the state
billions to lock up hundreds of thousands of drug offenders.
Some of those offenders are still in the state’s prisons and
jails serving out their sentences.
The reforms to the Rockefeller drug laws eliminate the
mandatory harsh sentences under the original laws by giving
judges total authority to instead divert some nonviolent drug
addicts to treatment, according to New York Gov. David
Paterson’s office.
The reforms also beefed up drug treatment programs,
according to New York Assembly Member Jeffrion Aubry, chair of
the Assembly Corrections Committee.
The reforms in New York were enacted April 24 as part of the
state’s 2009-2010 budget.
The old laws did not emphasize treatment and “led to huge
disparities,” Aubry said. “We felt they skewed the justice
system and ultimately in the 1980s and 1990s led to a huge
prison population.”
And New York was spending a whopping $2 billion to $3
billion a year on corrections, according to Aubry.
In fact, the budget pressures were part of what sparked the
need for reform, according to Sayegh with the Drug Policy
Alliance.
“New York and many other states were more than willing to
spend gobs and gobs of money on prisons that were bursting at
the seams,” Sayegh said. But that is slowly changing.
“It cost New Yorkers $45,000 a year to incarcerate someone
for drug offenses,” Sayegh said.
“The legislature had to find savings.”
In May 2008 on the 35th anniversary of the Rockefeller drug
laws, a meeting signaled a turning point, according to Sayegh.
The legislature’s criminal justice and corrections committees
joined three public health committees. The six committees held
joint hearings on drug law reform.
“No longer did you have a debate that was essentially
turning on criminal justice language,” Sayegh said. Public
health and drug treatment was now in the debate.
The options, Papa said, would have benefited people with
drug habits who, under the old Rockefeller drug laws, sat in
prison for long sentences. “They definitely would have
significantly made out better getting treatment than being put
in jail,” he said.
The new reforms put “the judge in the driver’s seat and not
the prosecutor who had previously been in the driver’s seat,”
Aubry said. This way, judges have discretion and can divert drug
offenders to treatment instead of incarceration. The practice is
evident in New York’s use of drug courts, where judges have
specialized training to deal with drug offenders and their
unique issues. (Please see sidebar.)
“This year we were able to restore a lot more discretion to
judges so they could make decisions based on the individuals who
were in front of them,” Aubry said.
Reform Spreads to Other States
That same kind of reform is catching on in other states. One
example is Connecticut, where similar drug laws were passed in
the wake of the Rockefeller drug laws.
Connecticut’s drug laws in the 1980s and 1990s were “right
on par with New York,” said Lorenzo Jones, executive director of
A Better Way Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy group focusing on
drug law reform.
“Like almost every state, we had a huge amount of people
doing time for drug-related offenses. The prisons are loaded up
with drug offenders—there’s no doubt about it. At the end of the
day, you had a lot of people in prison,” said Connecticut Rep.
Mike Lawlor.
“Connecticut, like a lot of other states, our prisons are
bursting at the seams and we’re trying to figure out ways to
bring that prison population down.”
Lawlor thinks mandatory minimum sentences along with harsh
penalties for even trace amounts of drugs had a lot to do with
the problem.
“My sense is that the existence of the mandatory minimums
gave the prosecutors quite a bit of leverage in the plea
bargaining process. So a lot of people ended up pleading to jail
or prison time mainly because if they didn’t, then they went to
trial and they’d get much longer,” Lawlor said.
Lawlor used to be a prosecutor and saw the effects
firsthand.
For instance, under Connecticut’s old drug laws, a person
caught selling as little as half a gram of crack cocaine—the
solid form of the drug—could face a potential life prison
sentence. But the laws treated other forms of the same drug
differently. Selling 1 ounce of cocaine in powder form—that’s
equal to 28.3 grams—triggered the same potential life prison
sentence.
The mandatory minimum sentence was also different for the
two forms of cocaine. Half a gram of crack cocaine triggered a
mandatory five-year minimum prison sentence while an entire
ounce of powder cocaine triggered the five-year minimum prison
sentence.
Half a gram of crack cocaine—which equals roughly half a
packet of sugar substitute—amounted to about $30 if sold on the
street, while 1 ounce of powder cocaine would amount to about
$700 if sold on the street, according to Jones.
But in 2005, Connecticut reformed the laws and balanced the
punishment for the two forms of the drug, raising the quantity
threshold for crack and lowering the threshold for the powder
form of cocaine. The new threshold is half an ounce for either
drug.
The state’s drug laws also include increased penalties for
school zone laws—those that address possessing or selling drugs
within a certain distance of schools, day care centers and
public housing projects. What began in the late 1980s as a
minimum sentence triggered by selling drugs within 1,000 feet of
a school in all directions, increased over the years to a
1,500-foot radius from
schools, day cares and public housing projects,
according to Lawlor.
The problem was, in the state’s urban areas like New Haven,
the school zones encompass virtually every location in the city.
“So you start drawing those circles and it pretty much
covers every square inch of the town,” Lawlor said.
So drug offenders caught virtually anywhere in the cities
are charged under the school zone laws, which often come with
increased penalties. And consequently, many residents of the
state’s urban areas are from various racial backgrounds, as
compared to the nonurban areas of the state, which are mostly
white, Lawlor said.
He would like to see the school zone laws reformed, because
based on his observations, the school zone laws are resulting in
racial disparities in the state’s prisons.
And even though the Rockefeller reforms signal a shift in
drug law policy in the states, it’s not over yet. That’s evident
when it comes to the school zone laws in Connecticut, Lawlor
said. Drug law reform touches on many issues including budget,
justice issues and issues of racial disparities, he said.
But right now, it just may be the budget pressures that are
speaking the loudest.
“The budget reality in a lot of states is forcing people to
say, alright do you really need to put all these people in jail
… it gets really expensive at one point, like the point we’re at
now, it’s really expensive. Unless you make a change, it’s going
to keep on getting worse,” Lawlor said.
—Mikel Chavers is associate editor of State News
magazine.
------------------
Flash! September 24, 2009: WRITER SAYS NEW
YORKERS READ THROUGH LESLIE CROCKER SNYDER'S LIES
On Tuesday September 15, Cy Vance Jr. overwhelmingly beat Leslie Crocker
Snyder in the race to be Manhattan's next district attorney. Since there is no
Republican challenger, Vance will be voted into office in November.
Snyder, who built her career as a ruthless prosecutor and judge, was beaten
so bad that the Village Voice quoted her on election night saying that she was
retiring from politics and going to China.
In my view, Snyder lost because of her over-reliance on a misguided
tough-on-crime approach, and because of her inability to balance her decisions
with common sense and compassion.
In the past Snyder portrayed herself as a John Wayne type of crusader of justice
who kicked butt and took no names. Yes, I know she says she only aimed the
barrels of her gun at the bad apples of society. But the main problem with that
was she could not tell the difference between apples and oranges.
In her run for Manhattan District Attorney Snyder completely revamped her image
and attempted to portray herself as a progressive thinker. She suddenly flipped
her position on issues like the death penalty and the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
Not long ago she was such a strong supporter of the death penalty that she said
she would insert the needle herself to deliver the death sentence. She also
suddenly claimed to be a leader in the epic struggle to reform the Rockefeller
Drug Laws. Her record as a judge told a different story, sentencing low level
offenders to tremendous amounts of time for drug convictions.
The office of District Attorney demands a competent leader that possesses a
balanced view of justice predicated on the concept of being tough on crime, but
also being smart on crime. Recently this approach broke into the national
landscape thanks to a smart and tough politician named Jim Webb, a senator from
Virginia.
He called for an overhaul of the U.S. prison system - stating that the American
system for the prosecution and incarceration of criminals not only needs reform,
but has become a "national disgrace".
Webb also sees the drug war as the primary cause for the overpopulation of our
prison system, and recently told CNN that marijuana legalization is one of the
policy changes that should be considered: "Well, I think what we need to do is
to put all of the issues on the table ... If yougo back to 1980 as a starting
point, I think we had 40,000 people in prison on drug charges, and today, we
have about 500,000 of them," the first-term Virginia lawmaker said. "And the
great majority of those are nonviolent crimes-possession crimes or minor sales."
Any discussion of being smart on crime in New York must broach the subject of
marijuana arrests. New York City now leads the world in low level marijuana
arrests. Even though surveys show half of American adults have used marijuana
and a similar amount want to see marijuana made legal, arrests are at all time
high in NYC. Since 2002, there have been over 255,000 arrests for misdemeanor
possession. As District Attorney, Cy Vance Jr. should find solutions to this
costly and ineffective policing policy.
The voters of Manhattan spoke out and elected Cy Vance Jr. as their district
attorney. Vance said he will try new approaches to cut crime and I wish him
luck. The message I give to Mr.Vance is that if he adopts a balanced approach to
justice that incorporates compassion, he will go a long way.
And as for Judge Snyder, I bid her farewell and I wish her ride on a slow
boat to China is a good one.
Anthony Papa is the author of 15 To Life and a communications specialist
for
the Drug Policy Alliance Network
FLASH! See the video where former drug law offender
TERRANCE STEVENS slams ex-judge snyder in her bid to become nyc'S NEXT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY "Leslie Crocker Snyder Exposed"
While Snyder is campaigning that she advocates for
reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws and only sentenced kingpins to harsh
sentences this is not true. She only does so seeking the black and Latino vote.
Jose Garcia was a low level offender who was sentenced to 15 years to life by
Snyder. He was 69 years old when he died in prison leaving behind his wife and
children
Now two former Rockefeller offenders Terrance Stevens (founder of In Arms Reach
http://inarmsreach.net )and Anthony Papa speak out. Stevens was sentenced to
15 to Life and did time with and was Garcia's friend. Anthony Papa a leading
Rockefeller reform advocate who was also sentenced to 15 to Life led a prayer
vigil in front of former Governor Patakis NYC office in Jose Garcia's name when
he died.
Leslie Crocker Snyder Should Not Be NYC's Next District Attorney
By Anthony Papa
Former Judge Leslie Crocker Snyder and I have a history. Most would say
it's a parallel relationship. Crocker was a "hang em' high" judge who was
infamous for handing out stiff drug sentences under the Rockefeller Drug
Laws. I served a 15 to life sentence under these laws. Crocker wrote a book,
25
to Life, that documents her career as a tough prosecutor and judge.
I wrote a book,
15 to Life, a
memoir about doing hard time under the harsh Rockefeller Drug Laws.
I met Snyder years ago when I was asked to be a guest on "Full Nelson," a
talk show on Fox hosted by Rob Nelson. When I found out that she was also on
the show I contacted Randy Credico, who co-founded the
Mothers of the New York Disappeared with me. Our group advocated for
those who had fallen through the cracks of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. Many
of us were deemed kingpins by individuals like Judge Snyder. But in reality
many of us were not. One individual who Synder sentenced was Jose Garcia,
who at 69 years old died in his prison cell in upstate New York. As a
graduate of New York Theological Seminary, I was chosen to perform the
eulogy in a special prayer we conducted in front of Governor Pataki's NYC
office. Hundreds of people attended along with Jose's elderly wife Hilda. We
all prayed that the Rockefeller Drug Laws would be reformed in the name of
Jose Garcia.
I made a plan to put Judge Snyder in the hot seat and thought it would be
a rare opportunity to confront her for her actions. I contacted the producer
and asked him for three guest tickets to the show. I called Randy and asked
him to bring two family members of loved ones who were sentenced by Judge
Snyder to sit in the audience. Doreen Lamarca's brother, Mike Lamarca, was
sentenced to 25 years to life. Evelyn Sanchez's son, Junior Gumbs, was
sentenced to a 33 to life term under the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
Snyder and I got into a heated debate on the show. Attempting to quell
our differences, Rob Nelson turned to the audience for questions. Randy
Credico raised his hand and furiously waved. He was chosen. My plan was
working. Credico, who is now running against Charles Schumer for Senate this
year, began a rant against Snyder, asking her why she had sentenced Doreen
and Evelyn's loved ones to such an extraordinary amount of time behind bars.
Ms. Sanchez, who was dying of cancer and had spent her life savings to
obtain legal representation for her son, began to cry. Snyder turned red and
was flabbergasted by the event. After the show she complained to producers
that she was set up. The show never aired.
A few years later I did a pilot reality show about prison. One of the
guests was Judge Leslie Crocker Snyder. She was rather cocky when she began
bragging about how criminals called her "The Princess of Darkness." I
remember asking her to explain her position on the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
She said she supported 90 percent of them. At that time over 90 percent of
those incarcerated were black and Latino. This alarmed me. I thought, "How
could she support a law that was obviously racist?" It told me something
about her.
Nowadays there is a new and improved Leslie Crocker Snyder. She is
running for New York City District Attorney and, remarkably, now supports
Rockefeller Drug Law reform. I almost fell off my chair when I heard this.
She sounded nothing like the old "Princess of Darkness." Do I think Snyder
really supports drug law reform? No, I don't. She knows that she needs the
black and Latino vote. And she knows that public opinion has shifted, as the
wastefulness and ineffectiveness of harsh sentences for drug law violations
has been brought to light over the past decade. I guess running for a
political office has a way of changing a person's thinking.
Anthony Papa is the author of "15 To Life" and a communication
specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance Network.
RIGHTS-US:
Struggle to Reform Draconian NY Drug Laws Continues
Maite
Ventura Oloriz
NEW YORK, Aug 10 (IPS) - Before making the biggest mistake of his life,
Anthony Papa lived a normal life with his wife and seven-year-old daughter,
working in his own radio repair shop in the Bronx. He’d never gotten into any
trouble with the law and took pleasure in simple things, like bowling.
In 1984, his whole life changed when one of the guys on his bowling team offered
him some ‘easy money’ in exchange for delivering an envelope with cocaine to the
neighbouring town of Mount Vernon, Westchester County. At first, he turned him
down, but as the man insisted, Papa saw a way out of his debts and finally
agreed.
When he arrived at the place where he was to deliver the drugs, Papa realised
that his bowling buddy was actually an informant working for the narcotics
police, and that he was walking into a routine drug sting.
Twenty police officers were waiting to arrest him for possession and
distribution of four and a half ounces (127 grams) of cocaine, a small amount
but enough to be considered a felony under New York laws and to put him in jail
for 15 years.
In 1973, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller promoted the enactment of a set of
stringent anti-drug laws - that have since become known as the ‘Rockefeller Drug
Laws’ - which would radically change the lives of thousands of people in New
York, especially in the black and Latino communities.
The laws established mandatory minimum sentences for possession and sale of
controlled substances, even for non-violent and low-level first offenders like
Papa.
A conviction for selling two ounces (56 grams) of heroin, morphine, opium,
cocaine or cannabis or for possession of four ounces (113 grams) of any of these
substances carried the same penalty as that imposed for second-degree murder: 15
years to life.
Rockefeller, a businessman, philanthropist and member of the Republican Party,
served as governor of New York State from 1959 to 1973, and during his last year
in office, he pushed these strict drug laws through the state legislature in an
effort to combat what was seen as a drug abuse epidemic.
At the time, the streets of New York were besieged by crime and violence and
plagued by heroin and other narcotics, and the idea was to isolate users and
deter criminals through threats of extreme punishment.
While the declared aim of the Rockefeller drug laws was to bring down the drug
kingpins and solve the drug epidemic, they have proved ineffective on both
counts, doing nothing more than expand the prison industrial complex.
Soon after their introduction, New York’s drug laws were emulated by other
states, as the country embraced the concept of the "war on drugs", which has
permeated international narcotics laws, with significant political, military and
social repercussions across the Americas.
According to critics, the most severe effect of these laws is that they meant
that judges could no longer exercise discretion in their sentencing, as they
forced them to apply penalties based exclusively on the amount of drug involved,
without considering mitigating factors, the offender’s role in the crime or the
circumstances in which it was committed. It was no longer relevant, for example,
if the person had a prior criminal record or not.
With extenuating circumstances no longer taken into account, the only way to
obtain a lighter sentence was to cooperate with investigations, an option only
available to those more deeply involved in criminal organisations, as they have
more valuable information to give the police. This means that sentences are
longer for small time dealers and for addicts who only turn to dealing to get
their next fix.
After 36 years of harsh sentencing in narcotics cases, there are some 15,000 New
Yorkers in maximum-security prisons for drug offences and no significant
reduction in drug addiction or dealing in the state, according to Real Reform
New York, an organisation that advocates for major reform of the Rockefeller
drug laws.
Blacks and Latinos are the most severely affected, representing 92 percent of
all convictions under these laws.
Although drug abuse and dealing exist among all ethnic groups, there are 11
times more blacks and Latinos in jail for drug-related offences than there are
white people.
The reason for this is that most of the arrests are made in poor, inner-city
areas, where these minorities live. "This happens even though white people use
more or less the same amount of drugs as black people," Papa said.
Many critics attribute this to a deliberate police strategy. "The police prefer
to have prisons filled with non-violent drug offenders," Papa claimed.
In 2004, the laws were revised and a few timid amendments were made, reducing
the terms of some penalties, but basically leaving the laws unchanged.
This year, on Apr. 24, Governor David Paterson, of the Democratic Party, signed
a bill that introduced broad modifications, most significantly restoring
judicial discretion by allowing judges to consider the offender’s degree of
involvement in the crime and grant alternatives to incarceration, such as
rehabilitation programmes.
However, the campaign for deeper reform of the Rockefeller drug laws continues
and there are several proposals currently being considered.
"We need further reform to get people who have received long sentences for
non-violent crimes out of jail," Papa said.
In the United States "there are more than half a million people in this
situation, and many of them need treatment instead of being locked up in a
cell," he added.
Papa was sentenced to 15 years in Sing Sing, a maximum-security prison in
Ossining, New York. "It was a living nightmare," he remembered. "I didn’t know
what I was going to do to survive in there, and then the negativity of jail life
led me to discover the art of painting."
In 1994, seven years after completing his first original painting - a
self-portrait called "15 to life" - his art was exhibited in the Whitney Museum
of American Art, and his story began receiving tremendous exposure in the media,
with New York Governor George Pataki (1995-2006) ultimately taking an interest
in his case and granting him early release in late 1996.
After spending 12 long years in jail, Papa was finally free. But rebuilding his
life in the outside world was not as easy as he thought it would be. "When I got
out, I didn’t know what to do with my life. So I started speaking at
universities, to young people, and I became an activist," he said.
"We began organising and formed a street movement to exert public pressure,
change constituents’ views and convince politicians to reform the law," he said.
After experiencing life in jail and the consequences of an ‘unjust’ system, he
has focused all his efforts on fighting against such draconian anti-narcotic
laws.
In 1988, Papa co-funded the grassroots organisation Mothers of the New York
Disappeared, an advocacy group comprised mostly of family members of those
imprisoned by the Rockefeller drug laws (modelled after the Argentine human
rights movement Madres de Plaza de Mayo), which "calls public attention to the
virtual disappearance of drug war prisoners into the hidden confines of the
United States prison industrial complex."
Today, he works as a communications specialist for the non-governmental Drug
Policy Alliance Network.
He has also written a memoir, entitled "15 to Life: How I Painted My Way to
Freedom" and published in 2004, which is currently being made into a movie by
filmmaker Brian Swibel.
"I hope it will become a major film that denounces the war on drugs and serves
as a wake-up call to reform these laws," Papa said.
Many politicians have also taken a position on the war on drugs. Jim Webb, a
senator for Virginia who has been pushing for reform for years, claims that not
only are changes urgently needed, but the tens of thousands of people serving
long prison sentences for non-violent crimes have meant that the U.S. "criminal
justice system has deteriorated to the point that it is a national disgrace."
On the other hand, New York Senator Dale Volker says the proposed reform of the
Rockefeller drug laws would allow convicted drug addicts to get jobs working
with children and senior citizens.
"This feel-good legislation will now allow drug addicts to apply to be teachers,
doctors, foster parents, child-care workers, nursing home aides, and
firefighters, since their backgrounds will now be sealed from their potential
employer," he said last May. (END/2009)
---------------------------
flash! aPRIL 24 2009
Governor Signs Rockefeller Drug
Reform Laws
qUEENS, ny APRIL 24, 2009
Anthony Papa of the Drug Policy Alliance thanks Gov.
Paterson at today’s Rockefeller Drug Law Reform bill signing ceremony in
Corona, Queens, at the Elmcor Community Center. Mr. Papa served 12 years in
prison under the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws.
The event honored longtime reform champion,
Assemblyman Jeffrion Aubry, who was a drug treatment counselor at the
community center for many years.
“After
many years of fighting these laws from behind bars and as a free man, I am
grateful that we have finally achieved meaningful reform” said Anthony Papa,
communications specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance who once spent 12
years in prison under the Rockefeller Drug Laws. “Now, it’s time to embrace
the changes and set free those who have been imprisoned under harsh and
unjust mandatory sentencing, allowing those who are eligible for judicial
relief to be reunited with their families and start productive lives as
citizens of New York.”
Photo taken by: Robert
Etropolszky
flash! april 21, 2009
In April 2009, Governor David Paterson signed
legislation enacting real reform of the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws. The
changes include: eliminating mandatory minimums and returning judicial
discretion in most (but not all) drug cases; reforming sentences; expanding drug
treatment and alternatives to incarceration; and allowing resentencing of some
currently incarcerated people who are serving sentences under the old laws. With
these reforms, New York begins its shift away from the Rockefeller Drug Law
regime, and moves towards a public health and safety approach to drug policy.
The 2009 reforms include the following:
Restores judicial discretion and eliminates mandatory prison
in low-level drug cases
Prison terms are no longer mandatory for those convicted of first
time non-violent Class B, C, D and E felonies. Judges can sentence to
probation, treatment or other alternatives to incarceration, or prison.
Prison terms are no longer mandatory for those convicted of second
time non-violent Class C, D, and E felonies
.
Judges can sentence to probation, treatment or
other alternatives to incarceration, or prison.
Prison terms are no longer mandatory for those convicted of second
time non-violent Class B felonies who are deemed by a drug treatment
counselor as being drug dependent or have abused drugs or alcohol. Judges
can sentence to treatment or other alternatives to incarceration, or prison.
Mandatory prison terms are still required for second-time Class B
felonies if defendant was convicted of, or had pending, a
violent felony
in the previous 10 years. In this case
there is no
judicial discretion.
Mandatory prison sentences remain for those convicted of Class
A-I and A-II felonies—
there
is no judicial discretion. Penalties for these
offenses were reduced in 2004/2005, but remain unduly harsh.
Expands drug courts and other alternatives to incarceration,
and reduces penalties
Expands drug treatment, alternatives to incarceration, and re-entry
services by investing nearly $71 million into those programs.
Allows the court to conditionally seal records of drug and some
non-drug, nonviolent offenses upon a defendant’s successful completion of
treatment or other alternative to incarceration programs. Police and
prosecutors will continue to have access to these records as needed for
criminal investigations.
Reduces the minimum penalty for Class B felonies from 3 ½ years
to 2 years.
Allows retroactive resentencing for approximately 1,500
currently incarcerated people
Allows those convicted of a Class B felony before 2005, now
serving an indeterminate sentence with a maximum term of more than 3
years, to petition the court to be re-sentenced under new sentencing
provisions. Judges then make a decision on re-sentencing—it is
not
automatic.
Allows those sentenced under Class B indeterminate sentences to
petition the court for re-sentencing for Class C, D or E felonies
"which were imposed by the sentencing court at the same time or were
included in the same order of commitment" as the Class B felony.
Excludes from resentencing those serving Class B indeterminate
sentences if they have a violent felony conviction in the preceding 10
years; are incarcerated for a merit-time ineligible offense; were convicted
as a "second violent felony offender" or "persistent violent felony
offender"; or previously sold narcotics to a minor.
Drug Policy Alliance | 70 West 36
th
St., 16th
fl. | New York, NY
10018 www.drugpolicy.org | nyc@drugpolicy.org | phone: (212) 613-8020
Creates new, more serious drug crime statutes
Establishes a "kingpin" provision as a Class A-I felony requiring
a mandatory term of imprisonment of 15 years to life. Restoring a 15 – life
sentence, which was initially eliminated in 2004, is a step in the wrong
direction.
Establishes a new mandatory minimum Class B felony provision for
adults 21 and over that sell to minors under 17 years of age.
Background on New York’s Rockefeller Drug Laws
Using prison to address drug abuse:
The Rockefeller Drug Laws, enacted in 1973 under then-Governor Nelson
Rockefeller, mandated extremely harsh mandatory-minimum prison terms for the
possession or sale of relatively small amounts of drugs. Supposedly intended to
target major dealers (kingpins), most of the people incarcerated under these
laws were convicted of low-level, nonviolent offenses, and many had no prior
criminal records. The laws marked an unprecedented shift towards addressing drug
abuse through the criminal justice system instead of the medical and public
health systems. It was a shift that New Yorkers would soon discover didn’t work
and come to regret.
Waste of taxpayer dollars:
Approximately 12,000 people remain locked up for drug offenses in New York State
prisons, representing nearly 21% of the prison population. The state spends over
$525 million per year to incarcerate people for drug offenses – 66% have
previously never been to prison, and 80% have never been convicted of a violent
felony. It costs approximately $45,000 to incarcerate a person for one year,
while treatment costs average $15,000 per year, and is proven to be 15 times
more effective at reducing crime and recidivism.
Extreme racial disparities:
The laws
have led to extraordinary racial disparities in the state’s criminal justice
system. Studies show that rates of addiction, illicit drug use and illicit drug
sales are approximately equal between racial groups. But while Black and Latino
people make up only 32% of New York State’s population, they comprise nearly 90%
of those currently incarcerated for drug felonies. This is one of the highest
levels of racial disparities in the nation, and is widely considered a human
rights disgrace.
Limited changes in 2004 and 2005:
After years of vigorous advocacy, in December 2004 the NY State Legislature
passed limited reforms of the laws, including some sentence reductions,
increases in merit time, and improvements to parole. These reforms were a small
step forward, but did not constitute real reform—for instance, the changes did
not restore judicial discretion or provide funds for community-based drug
treatment. As then-Republican Senate Leader Joseph Bruno admitted: "This is only
a small step, and we need to do more."
Today: Towards a Public Health and Safety Approach to Drug
Policy in New York
Real reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws sets the stage for the development
of a public health and safety approach to drug policy in New York City and State
– policies that can successfully reduce the death, disease, crime and suffering
associated with drug dependency and abuse. New Yorkers are ready and have
already begun outlining the best practices of this new approach: In January of
2009, DPA and The New York Academy of Medicine convened the historic conference,
New Directions
for New York. Hundreds of stakeholders from the
community, from NY City and State government, and the fields of public health,
treatment, and criminal justice assembled to explore a coordinated public health
and safety approach to drugs. Lessons from that gathering will continue to help
shape the future of drug policy in New York.
New
America Media, News feature, byMarcelo Ballvé, Posted: Mar 27, 2009
NEW YORK -- As hard as he
fought for it, Tony Papa sometimes thought this day would never come.
Now that it has, he's still not quite sure how to handle it.
An hour after the announced deal on Friday to reform the so-called
Rockefeller drug laws, New York statutes that routinely lead to long
prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, Papa sits in his office
cluttered with memorabilia from half a lifetime fighting the laws, and
can't shake the disbelief. "I'm actually still in a daze, really," he
says.
Papa, who had no prior criminal record, was arrested in 1985 as he was
delivering four ounces of cocaine, something he said he did only because
he was desperate for the promised $500 payoff, and sentenced to 15 years
to life. Under the Rockefeller laws, enacted in 1973, the judge had no
discretion to hand down a more lenient sentence. So, like thousands of
young drug offenders sentenced under the laws, the Bronx-born and raised
Papa went straight from the streets to Sing Sing Maximum Security
Prison, with no stops in between. He wasn't given a shot at probation,
counseling or treatment.
The reforms will allow judges more discretion when sentencing and allow
them to order more alternatives like treatment and probation. They also
will eliminate mandatory prison sentences for first- and second-time
drug offenders and retroactively allow more than 1,000 nonviolent
inmates to apply for re-sentencing.
In a recent column at the Huffington Post, a kind of open letter to
Bernard Madoff, Papa describes his time in prison so that the Ponzi scam
artist might know what to expect: "It's about learning how to live in
the present, no matter how bleak the present is. Dwelling on your past
and hoping for the future will become as painful as it is futile. You
will have to forget about life on the outside in order to maintain your
sanity on the inside."
For 12 years, Papa remained on the inside, and it was only the
paintbrush that saved him from more time. He took up art in prison, and
one day the Whitney Museum chose one of his paintings for an exhibit. In
the painting, Papa grips his bald head, a gesture of desperation, while
an inky blackness swirls in the background. A paintbrush points outward,
and a digital watch on his wrist alludes to that common denominator of
prison sentences, however unjustified: time.
He became something of a minor celebrity, an embodiment of what critics
perceived as the laws' fundamental unfairness. Finally, in 1997, Gov.
George Pataki granted him clemency. In the years since, Papa has been
featured in hundreds of articles, news programs and documentaries. He
wrote a memoir about his experiences, “15 to Life: How I Painted My Way
to Freedom,” and co-founded Mothers of the New York Disappeared, which
lobbies on behalf of those trapped in what some activists call the
"Rockefeller Gulag."
Bits and pieces of Papa's career as an artist-activist decorate his
office at the Drug Policy Alliance or DPA, where along with other
staffers he lobbies for an end to the drug war and criminal justice
reform. There are parts to his art installation, "The Drug War," built
around a banner that reads, "According to DPA Zogby poll 45 percent
support making cigarettes illegal within 10 years: Time to build more
prisons?" He also has a binder full of photos with celebrities and
politicians who have supported him, including Def Jam founder Russell
Simmons and, notably, New York Gov. David Paterson.
According to the DPA, 20 percent of the state's prison population was
sentenced for drug violations, and 90 percent are black or Hispanic.
Paterson became governor early last year, when former Gov. Eliot Spitzer
was forced to resign after it was found he was a client of a
prostitution ring. Paterson, the state's first black governor, is highly
unpopular right now, but Papa credits him with loyalty to the movement
for a reform of the Rockefeller laws.
"I knew something positive would happen with him as governor," says
Papa, 49, who wears a salt-and-pepper goatee and glasses. "He's stood by
us for many years. I'm glad that the stars finally aligned."
Prosecutors and some Republican legislators opposed a reform of the
Rockefeller laws. They pointed out that parts of the laws had already
been eased in 2004 and 2005, and argued that further softening of drug
sentencing could lead law enforcement to lose control of crime in the
state and New York City.
Legislators in some upstate districts of New York dependent on prisons
for employment and revenue also tried to oppose the deal. But with the
governor's office and both houses of the legislature controlled by
Democrats, and a budget crisis creating demands for cost cutting,
opponents lost the battle. Democrats say the announced reforms will save
the state $250 million a year.
Although the political will to reform the Rockefeller laws had been
building for months, as recently as three weeks ago Papa still wasn't
sure a deal would go through, since similar efforts had been blocked
before by political maneuverings. "I have a little faith," he said
uncertainly then.
Now, the laws seem headed for the history books, and Papa has another
reason for satisfaction: Three days before, producers of Will Ferrell's
Broadway show on President George W. Bush had optioned his memoir for a
feature film. "I've been waiting a long time for this day," says Papa.
How will he celebrate? "I'm definitely going to have a couple of
drinks."
__________________
Producers lock up prison memoir
Variety
alum Mike Jones to pen '15 to Life'
By DAVE MCNARY
Producers B. Swibel and
Barrett Stuart have optioned feature rights to Anthony Papa's prison
memoir, "15 to Life," and have tapped Mike Jones to adapt.
The project marks Swibel's first
foray into feature film after producing Broadway shows "Xanadu" and Will
Ferrell's "You're Welcome America: A Final Night With George W Bush."
"15 to Life" centers on Papa's
sentence in a New York maximum-security prison for a nonviolent drug
offense. During his 12 years in prison he became an artist whose work
was shown at the Whitney Museum, leading to then-Gov. Pataki granting
him clemency.
Jones, a former Variety reporter, recently
sold his adaptation of Steven Sherrill's "The Minotaur Takes a Cigarette
Break" to the Gotham Group.
Flash! 1/7/2009 Paterson Calls for Reform of the Rockefeller
Drugs Laws in his State of the State Speech!
Paterson: reform Rockefeller drug
laws
Albany Times Union, NY -
Jan 7, 2009
“I cannot think of a
criminal justice strategy that has been
more unsuccessful than the
Rockefeller Drug laws,” said
Paterson. ...
Flash!
Paterson Grants Clemency! A little media pressure works wonders!
"I think we have a better shot than ever
if Paterson takes a leadership role," said
Anthony Papa, who served 12 years under the
laws before he was granted clemency by
George Pataki in 1997.
David Paterson mentioned the need to
reform the laws in his speech yesterday,
saying he "cannot think of a criminal
justice strategy that has been more
unsuccessful" in its purpose. He was a
supporter of reforming the laws as a state
senator.
"Even to have the issue addressed in the
State of the State is big news. It shows he
has some compassion for Rockefeller
offenders," said Papa. He noted that a week
ago,
the laws didn't appear to be on Paterson's
radar. The governor eventually granted
clemency to one inmate serving a drug crime
sentence.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said he
was glad to hear the call for reform in the
speech, and called the laws "draconian."
The real shift lies in the State Senate.
The laws have been held up there for years,
with State Senator Dale Volker leading the
charge. Malcolm Smith has said he supports
reforming the laws. Skelos was asked about
it:
"I'm going to rely on Dale Volker working
on that with our conference," he said. "I
want to see what reforms we're talking
about, but we have to be very careful in
terms of any changes that anybody that's
been a real drug dealer, they deserve to be
in jail."
Another factor is the
State Commission on Sentencing Reform,
created by Eliot Spitzer to look at the
laws. It's unclear how closely Paterson will
mirror the commission's recommendations,
which Papa doesn't believe will go far
enough.
Flash!!
12/30/08 Paterson May Be Scrooge Number Two!
NY Daily News
Elizabeth Benjamin: The
Daily Politics
Begging You For Mercy
December 29, 2008
If
you count today, there are exactly three days remaining in 2008 and Gov.
David Paterson has so far yet to uphold the holiday tradition of doling out
executive clemencies to New York prison inmates deemed deserving of early
release.
Granted,
Paterson, who is in NYC with no public schedule today and hasn't made any
public appearances since his Christmas Day visit
with the Rev. Al Sharpton, has a lot on his mind these days, what with
the whole budget crisis thing and the fight for Hillary Clinton's US Senate
seat.
Paterson's
press office was mum on the topic of whether he will be granting any
clemencies this year, but it seems possible he might follow in the footsteps
of his predecessor, ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer, on this particular issue (as he
has in so many areas) and take a pass altogether.
This possibility has drug law
reform activists like Anthony Papa, a former drug offender to whom
ex-Republican Gov. George Pataki granted clemency in 1997,
very worried.
"We are going to get on
Paterson for not granting anyone clemency," Papa wrote in a recent e-mail,
noting that the governor was a big supporter of drug law reform back when he
was a liberal state senator from Harlem.
"He's in Iraq, which is nice for the press," Papa added (the governor was
still traveling on his
Iraq/Afghanistan CODEL at the time). "To forget the war in his own state
is not acceptable."
To illustrate his point, Papa
sent over this photo of Paterson speaking at a book party thrown for Papa at
the Whitney Museum of Art in 2004 by AG Andrew Cuomo, who has spoken out
numerous times about the need to further reform the draconian Rockefeller
Drug Laws.
The
1970s-era laws were amended during the Pataki administration to do away with
life sentences for the worst, Class A, felonies. But the bulk of offenders
are doing time on B-level charges, and the sentence structure for those
remains largely unchanged, as does the lack of judicial discretion in most
cases to sentence clearly addicted offenders to substance abuse treatment
centers rather than prison.
One of Paterson's first acts
upon taking over the governor's office from Spitzer was to
issue a pardon for Ricky "Slick Rick" Waters, a hip-hop artist convicted
in 1991 on attempted murder and weapons charges who was facing deportation
to the UK.
Prior to Spitzer's pardon of
Frederick Lake, a Brooklyn man who faced deportation to Jamaica due to his
conviction of a 1989 robbery, the last gubernatorial pardon granted in New
York occurred in 2003. It was posthumously awarded by Pataki to the comedian
Lenny Bruce, who had been convicted of "using foul language in public."
Unlike a pardon, which erases
a conviction from the records, a clemency merely reduces an offender’s
sentence. The Parole Board must sign off on clemencies, but historically it
has rarely opposed a governor’s wishes.
Flash! Over 5 million
individuals that were convicted of felonies will be barred from voting in the
presidential election!
Federal law needed
to protect ex-felon voting rights
Wednesday, October
08, 2008 By Anthony Papa
More
than 5 million people convicted of felonies will be barred from
voting in the upcoming presidential election. This is a
mind-boggling number of people who will be disenfranchised. The most
alarming aspect is that many of them are eligible to vote but don't
know it.
In New York state, if you are
convicted of a felony, you automatically lose your right to vote.
According to the New York State Division of Parole, your right to
vote is restored once you have completed either parole or your
maximum sentence. If you are on probation, your right to vote is
never taken away. But most ex-felons do not know this.
When I was released from prison after
serving 12 years under the Rockefeller drug laws, I had no clue
about my eligibility to cast a vote. When I went to register to vote
I was shocked when they informed me that I had to wait until I was
first released from parole. I felt the pain of felony
disenfranchisement since it seemed I was being further punished for
my crime.
I saw my Queens neighborhood
deteriorating around me but was powerless to do anything about it by
casting my vote. I was elated when, after waiting for five years, I
got off parole and was able to cast my first vote since being
released from prison. I felt then like I was fully welcomed back by
society as a citizen.
According to the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), in New York state more than 100,000 people
are convicted of felonies every year. A record 115,573 people were
convicted of felony offenses in 2007. Nearly 62,300 of those who are
convicted are currently on probation for felonies. This amounts to
hundreds of thousands of individuals who probably think they cannot
vote forever.
There is a growing concern among the
public and policymakers for these people to discover their
eligibility to cast a ballot. New York State Assemblyman Nick Perry
of the 58th District of Kings County is one of those concerned. He
currently is sponsoring legislative bill A4107, which would require
the Division of Criminal Justice Services to notify former inmates
that their right to vote has been restored within 30 days prior to
their release.
In addition, it would require voter
registration forms to be provided to these individuals. The bill
will help former inmates reintegrate more fully into society by
empowering them with the right to vote.
You may wonder why prisoners are not
notified of this right. I think the problem lies in the voting
system itself. In a report by the Brennan Center and the ACLU, based
on hundreds of interviews with New York election officials, they
found that one third of them did not know that individuals on
probation could vote.
The report urged states to better
train election officials and to eliminate complicated registration
procedures and paperwork to make sure criminal defendants are fully
informed about their voting rights.
Even at the federal level, legislation
was introduced last week that would restore the right to vote in
federal elections to individuals who were previously convicted of a
crime, completed their prison terms and are living in the community.
The Democracy Restoration Act of 2008 (DRA, S. 6340, H.R. 7136) was
introduced in both chambers of Congress by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc.,
and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich.
Exercising the right to vote should be
an important part of a prisoner's rehabilitation. It's an act that
makes one feel whole again following years of losing those rights as
part of a punishment for crimes committed. If, through voting,
individuals can become involved in the political process, they have
a much better chance of fully integrating back into society.
Anthony Papa is
the author of "15 To Life" and communications specialist for the
Drug Policy Alliance in New York.
By Anthony Papa, Drug Policy Alliance
Posted on September 23, 2008, Printed on September 24, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/99779/
A coalition of concerned citizens in Alabama is shaking up the GOP with their
goal of registering voters in the most unlikely of places -- state prisons. A
voter registration drive led last week by Rev. Kenny Glasgow, began registering
prisoners to vote, a right guaranteed under Alabama's State Constitution, so
they could cast absentee ballots.
The drive was originally embraced by Richard Allen, the commissioner of
corrections in Alabama, but it was stopped when he
received a letter on Thursday from the Alabama Republican Party opposing the
drive. Its chairman, Mike Hubbard, told Mr. Allen that the party supports voter
registration but not for prisoners, citing a need for safeguards against
possible voter fraud.
Rev. Glasgow challenged this statement and said, "Voter registration drives
are an essential part of our democracy. This action by the GOP and the
Department of Corrections smacks of voter intimidation. Our focus isn't
politics, its restoration. We're just doing what the Bible says, visiting people
in prison and ministering to them. The chairman of the Republican Party and the
chairman of the Democratic Party can go into prisons with us and monitor the
registration process to make sure it's nonpartisan, if that's a concern."
In Alabama, nearly 250,000 people have been stripped of their right to vote
due to a felony conviction. But, in a 2006 court ruling which was the result of
a lawsuit by Ryan Haygood of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, a judge found that
only those persons convicted of felonies of "moral turpitude" lose their right
to vote. The judge found that certain felonies -- such as drug possession -- do
not constitute crimes of moral turpitude and, therefore, individuals convicted
of those crimes do not lose their voting rights, even during incarceration.
Rev. Glasgow's organization, Alabama-based The Ordinary People's Society
(TOPS) and their national partner, the Drug Policy Alliance, estimate that more
than 50,000 people convicted in Alabama of felonies falling outside the "moral
turpitude" definition have been wrongly denied their right to vote, or anyway
believe they lost that right due to a felony conviction.
While drug use is proportionally equal across all racial lines, African
Americans are incarcerated for drug crimes at much higher rates than whites.
Blacks make up only 26 percent of Alabama's population but are nearly 60 percent
of the prison population. And, for every white person in an Alabama jail, there
are about four black people.
"We've got to start restoring people's lives by providing treatment, by
restoring the right to vote," said Reverend Kenneth Glasgow, TOPS executive
director and state coordinator of their New Bottom Line campaign. "When a person
gets a felony conviction, they can lose more than their voting rights; they can
lose public assistance, public housing and financial aid for school. The drug
war has become a war on people and we now spend more on incarceration than on
treatment. Why do we spend more on producing criminals than producing citizens?
We need a new bottom line."
The right to vote is an important part of the rehabilitation process and
should be given to those who have paid their debt to society. An estimated 5.3
million Americans are denied the right to vote because of laws that prohibit
voting by people with felony convictions. A few years ago, I was one of those
Americans. I was on parole and could not vote after serving 12 years of a
15-to-life sentence for a nonviolent drug crime under New York's draconian
Rockefeller Drug Laws. After my release, I
felt the pain of
felony disenfranchisement since it seemed I was being further punished for
my crime. I was elated when, after waiting for five years, I got off parole and
was able to cast my first vote. I felt I was fully welcomed back by society as a
citizen.
"Alabama state law makes it clear that people incarcerated for simple drug
possession never lose their right to vote, even while incarcerated," said
Glasgow. "The GOP and the Alabama Department of Corrections cannot decide on
their own which constituencies are going to have access to the vote, and which
will be barred from it. We live in a democracy, after all."
On September 23rd at 7pm Troy Davis
is set to be
executed by lethal injection by the State of Georgia. He maintains his
innocence in the 1989 murder of police officer Mark Allen MacPhail. Davis
was convicted on August 19, 1989. Since then several major witnesses
recanted their testimony. Their statements were the crux of the
prosecutorial evidence used to convict Davis, since no other significant
evidence such as a murder weapon, DNA or fingerprints were found.
The quest to save Troy Davis has received worldwide attention. Pleas from
important and respected leaders such as Pope Benedict XVI, former president
Jimmy Carter and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Desmond Tutu have been heard. His
pleas for clemency have been turned down twice by the Georgia State Pardons
and Parole Board.
Amnesty International conducted an extensive examination of the case,
documenting the many recantations, inconsistencies, contradictions and
unanswered questions. Its report on the case drew widespread attention, both
in the U.S. and overseas.
Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty and the NAACP said they
are planning a rally at 11 a.m. on September 22nd in front of the State
Capitol to stay the execution of Davis. What might be too little too late,
the United States Supreme Court will hear an appeal on September 29th.
Actor/Activist Susan Sarandon in a recent letter she wrote to the Georgia
State Board of Pardon and Parole stated
"Despite mounting evidence that
Davis may be in fact be innocent of the crime, appeals to the courts to
consider this evidence have been repeatedly denied for procedural reasons.
Instead, the prosecution based its case on the testimony of purported
"witnesses," many of who allege police coercion and most of whom have since
recanted their testimony. One witness signed a police statement declaring
that Davis was the assailant then later said "I did not read it because I
cannot read." In another case a witness stated that the police "were telling
me that I was an accessory to murder and that I would...go to jail for a
long time and I would be lucky if I ever got out, especially because a
police officer got killed...I was only sixteen and was so scared of going to
jail." There are also several witnesses who have implicated another man in
the crime but the police focused their efforts on convicting Troy.
It is deeply troubling that Georgia
might proceed with this execution given the strong claims of innocence in
this case. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that our criminal justice
system is not devoid of error and we now know that since 1973, 129
individuals have been released from death rows across the United States due
to wrongful conviction. We must confront the unalterable fact that the
system of capital punishment is fallible, given that it is administered to
demonstrate your strong commitment to fairness and justice and commute the
death sentence of Troy Anthony Davis."
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, Susan Sarandon
Even family members of those who
were violently murdered speak out against the execution of Troy Davis.
Derrel Myers, a bereaved father who lost Jojo, his 23 year old son,
speaks eloquently about his son's death and how he came to terms with it in
a
interview on
Raising Sand Radio
You can protest this travesty of
justice by calling the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles to reconsider
its clemency decision, telephone board chair Gale Buckner at 404-657-9350, or Georgia Attorney General Thurbert E. Baker
at 404-656-3300 .
Tony Papa spent 12 of 15 years
of his youth in Sing Sing Prison for a minor drug offense. While there, he
learned about art and to paint. Today, he is active against the prison
system and draconian drug laws while also working to highlight the nature of
prison. He is communications specialist for the
Drug Policy Alliance and regularly exhibits his artwork.
Raising Sand live Monday from 2 - 3 pm Pacific time, FM 90.1
streaming from 2 - 3 pm Pacific at http://kzsulive.stanford.edu/
Listen anytime to the archived show onwww.raisingsandradio.org or http://raisingsandradio.blogspot.com.
(Note:if the server becomes too busy and does not download the show, log on
and listen later.)
Last week's show: Dr. Michael Parenti is an
internationally known award-winning author and lecturer and one of the
nation’s leading progressive political analysts. As author of 20 highly
informative and entertaining books - his latest is Contrary Notions- and
innumerable talks his ideas have reached a wide range of audiences in North
America and abroad.
Listen:
http://www.radio4all.net:8080/files/sgalleymore@hotmail.com/3035-1-capitalism2_mix.mp3
Thanks for listening and let us know what else you'd like to hear on Raising
Sand.
Susan Galleymore
Raising Sand Radio
KZSU Stanford, FM 90.1
susan@raisingsandradio.org
www.raisingsandradio.org
The war on drugs has created convenient vehicles of looking tough on crime
while hiding being the shield of public safety. But that shield gets worn
down when our basic rights are curtailed through its use. It’s not enough
that federal laws were created forcing cold sufferers to jump through
ridiculous hoops to purchase what were originally over-the-counter
medications.
We need to invest scarce public resources into educating the public about
the use of meth and providing high quality treatment options to fight
addiction. This is a much better idea that creating more law enforcement
tools that are downright intrusive and layer on ineffective bureaucratic
busywork.
It might not be apparent now, but neither was our right to not be hassled
when buying cold medicine before the law changed.
Anthony Papa
Communications specialist, Drug Policy Alliance
New York
Unlocking the Power of Art to Counter Injustice
By Anthony Papa, AlterNet
Posted on August 21, 2008, Printed on September 7, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/95929/
The artist's role as social commentator and activist has historically been
engrained in our culture. Art and its creation as a response to social and
political issues can become powerfully influential in raising public awareness
that results in positive change.
Art as a social weapon has been around for a long time. Recall the great
German expressionist painter Kathe Kollwitz, who created works of art that
centered on themes such as poverty, unemployment and worker exploitation. Diego
Rivera and the other Mexican muralists used their art as a tool for the
oppressed against their oppressors. They expressed their opinions and got their
message across to the literate and illiterate alike, and earned worldwide
recognition. In April 1937, the world learned the shocking truth about the Nazi
Luftwaffe's bombing of Guernica, Spain -- a civilian target; Pablo Picasso
responded with his great anti-war painting, Guernica.
Few public policies have undermined fundamental human rights and civil
liberties, social justice and public health for so long and to such an extent as
America's 35-year-long drug war. Today almost two and a half million people are
behind bars because of this "war." In 1988 while serving a 15-to-life sentence
under the Rockefeller Drug Laws, I discovered my talent as an artist. One night
while sitting in my 6 x 9 cell I picked up a mirror and saw the face of
individual that was to spend the most productive years of his life in a cage. I
picked up a paintbrush, put color to canvas and painted the image I saw. About
seven years later that piece, titled "15 to Life," was exhibited at the Whitney
Museum of American Art. Two years later I was granted executive clemency by the
governor of New York.
On Wednesday, September 3rd, the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) will host
re:FORM, an art auction and cocktail
party benefit at Cheim & Read gallery in New York. re:FORM will benefit DPA, the
nation's leading organization promoting alternatives to the drug war that are
grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights. re:FORM represents the
second installment in a groundbreaking partnership between the art world and the
drug policy reform movement, following DPA's first successful event in 2005. DPA
will use the occasion to honor three dear friends of the organization: Donald
Baechler, Dr. Mathilde Krim and Fred Tomaselli.
Proceeds from the art exhibit and auction will benefit DPA and be used to
respond to the destructive consequences of the war on drugs. The U.S. now has
the highest incarceration rate in the world -- one American adult out of every
100 is currently behind bars. More than 700,000 Americans were arrested last
year for simple marijuana possession. The drug war even targets sick and dying
Americans, thousands of whom are regularly denied access to medical marijuana, a
medication with proven medical benefits for the treatment of a wide range of
serious illnesses.
Works of 50 visual artists, among them Louise Lawler and Kara Walker, will be
auctioned off. The benefit's co-chairs are John Cheim, James Cohan, Jason Flom,
Howard Read and George Soros. Honorary co-chairs are Darren Aronofsky, Alba
Clemente, Walter Cronkite, Peter Lewis and Russell Simmons. "We are amazed and
grateful that so many leading artists are willing to support our work," says
Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of DPA. Their donations of time and their
work will empower our efforts to reform the draconian drug laws that cause so
much more harm than good."
This art auction benefit is inspired by past artists who have used art as a
vehicle for social change. I hope this show will enlighten others to join us in
our attempt to stop the madness of the war on drugs.
For more information please visit
drugpolicyevent.org September 3 ,
6-8pm, at the Cheim & Read Gallery 547 W 25th St, New York, NY 10001
Dog lovers of the world unite. Our federal
government's zero-tolerance anti-drug crusade reached a
new low in Prince George's County, Maryland, when police
killed two innocent pet Labrador retrievers while
improperly conducting a SWAT-style drug raid on the
mayor's house.
On July 29, police burst into the home of Berwyn
Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo and immediately shot to death
his two Labrador retrievers. They were there to conduct
a search for drugs. The raid was conducted by county
police narcotics officers and a sheriff's office SWAT
Team.
The incident occurred after Calvo carried in a
package that was addressed to his wife. The mayor's
mother-in-law had told the deliverymen, who were
actually undercover police officers, to leave the
package outside of his house. When Calvo arrived home
that night, he brought the package inside. That's when
the police broke down the door and immediately opened
fire on the mayor's two dogs as they ran away from the
narco-cops.
Police began tracking the package at a Midwest post
office where drug sniffing dogs had discovered that the
package contained 32 pounds of marijuana. Calvo said he
had no idea how the package arrived at his home and that
the sheriff's deputies entered without knocking. Then
they immediately executed Payton, his 7-year old dog
first, followed by Chase, a 4-year-old Lab, as he ran to
another room.
Upon further investigation, it was found that the
police did not even bother to secure a needed no-knock
search warrant. Timothy Maloney, the mayor's attorney
described the incident as a lawless act by law
enforcement.
Calvo has not been charged, though police said he,
his wife and his mother-in-law are all "persons of
interest" in an ongoing investigation. The mayor said,
"These were two beautiful black Labradors who were
well-known in the community. We walked them twice a day;
little kids knew their names and would come up to them
and pet them," he said.
What makes this case unique is that this raid
happened to a well known elected official. What is not
unique is that these gestapo-like tactics happen every
day in communities across America.
The drug war is an endless crusade by our government
to promulgate its senseless zero-tolerance drug policies
by any means necessary. This war on drugs has created
convenient vehicles for appearing "tough on crime"
behind a shield of public safety. But that shield gets
worn down when our basic rights are curtailed through
its use. We need to
promote
policy alternatives to the drug war that are
grounded in science, compassion, health and human
rights. In doing so we can reduce the harms of both drug
misuse and drug prohibition, and seek solutions that
promote safety while upholding the sovereignty of
individuals over their own minds and bodies.
Anthony Papa is a communications specialist for Drug
Policy Alliance
_______________________
By Anthony Papa
Updated: 07/23/08 6:49 AM
Texas Ranger Josh Hamilton is the new golden boy of baseball.
Hamilton’s record-breaking performance in Major League Baseball’s
All- Star Home Run Derby at Yankee Stadium last week is a living
testament to that fact that people who struggled with drugs in the
past can change their lives in a positive way. A few years ago,
Hamilton, who developed an addiction to alcohol and drugs —
primarily crack cocaine — was at the lowest point of his life when
he was suspended from baseball for three years.
Instead of giving in to the downward spiral of drug addiction, he
made an effort to turn around his life. After eight stints in rehab,
Hamilton was finally able to kick his addiction and return to
baseball. While he may not have won the Home Run Derby crown,
battling and defeating the monster of addiction makes him a winner.
Hamilton was fortunate that his addiction was not handled as a
criminal manner. Instead of having Hamilton deal with his demons
behind bars, his addiction was treated as a medical problem, which
helped him get his life back on track. Hamilton’s story sends a
powerful message to society. Individuals with drug addictions can
become productive citizens, if given the chance.
A realistic way to help those who cycle in and out of addiction
is to increase community-based treatment. Studies have shown this to
be a cost-effective method of reducing drug abuse. Hamilton was
lucky enough to be able to afford treatment and get access right
away. Most people cannot afford it. And even if they can, they are
usually forced to compete for the treatment slots.
Recent developments in criminal justice indicate the emergence of
a national movement in favor of treating, rather than incarcerating,
people charged with nonviolent drug possession. These include drug
courts, local policies that favor treatment and statewide ballot
initiatives that divert nonviolent drug offenders to treatment.
But instead of following this trend, the federal government
continues to turn a blind eye toward this movement and steadfastly
sticks to zero-tolerance when it comes to illegal drug use. Witness
the get-tough policies of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
under the direction of John P. Walters. In fact, the office is so
hell-bent on controlling the so-called drug plague that its policies
have turned from overly intrusive to downright warlike at times.
From suspicionless student drug testing to mandatory sentencing
laws that dish out extraordinarily long sentences for small amounts
of drugs, the drug war continues to be the government’s moral
obsession.
We need to implement sensible drug policies that uphold the
sovereignty of individuals over their minds and bodies, and are
grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights. Maybe then
we can give people like Josh Hamilton another chance to make good on
their potential.
Anthony Papa is the author of “15 to Life”and a communications
specialist for DrugPolicy Alliance.
Flash! NY Times to governor - rockefeller reform now!
May
27, 2008
Editorial
Thirty-Five Years of Rockefeller ‘Justice’
Enacted in 1973, New York’s Rockefeller drug laws penalized some
first-time drug offenders more severely than murderers. Named for Nelson
Rockefeller, who was governor at the time, the laws tied the hands of judges and
mandated lengthy sentences for young offenders who often deserved a second
chance. The laws, which were supposed to ensnare “kingpins,” have filled the
prisons with drug addicts who would have been better dealt with through
treatment programs. They also undermined faith in the fairness of the justice
system by singling out poor and minority offenders while exempting wealthy ones.
New York has made
incremental changes in laws in recent years but has failed to restore judicial
discretion. A sentencing commission appointed by Eliot Spitzer, the former New
York governor, pretty much ducked the issue in an interim report issued last
fall. But criminal justice advocates have higher hopes for Mr. Spitzer’s
successor, David Paterson, who spoke out vigorously for Rockefeller reform as a
state senator. He was arrested while demonstrating against the laws in 2002.
If Governor Paterson is looking for motivation to take on this
issue, he can find it in a recent report from The Correctional Association of
New York, a nonprofit group that monitors prison conditions. According to the
report, New York is currently paying $500 million a year to house its drug
offenders. The costs are rising as more people go to prison for minor,
nonviolent drug offenses.
The law often metes out long prison terms to addicts, petty dealers
or people only peripherally involved in the trade. Indeed, 4 in 10 drug
offenders in the state’s prisons were locked up for possession as opposed to
selling. These are hardly kingpins. In fact, nearly half the drug offenders in
the state’s prisons were convicted of the lowest level crimes.
Many of these people are clearly addicts who would benefit from
treatment. But the mandatory sentencing guidelines limit the courts’ ability to
choose the treatment option. It is long past time for New York to overturn these
laws and to return judicial discretion. Governor Paterson, who can cite chapter
and verse on this issue, should to take the lead in this important fight.
__________________________________
May
15, 2008
Rewrite New York's
Rockefeller drug laws
Assembly hearing in
Rochester a chance to hear upstate's side
It's positive on two fronts that the state Assembly plans to be in
Rochester today for hearings on the outdated and draconian Rockefeller
drug laws.
One, the Assembly, controlled by downstate Democrats, holds far too few
hearings upstate on a variety of issues important to our communities.
Speaker Sheldon Silver should do more to combat the impression that
he and his conference don't appreciate the severity of upstate's
struggling economy. On such questions as the revitalization package,
school tax caps, consolidation and others, he should work harder to
understand this region's particular concerns.
Two, the Rocky drug laws, on the books for 35 years, have proved
ineffective in halting drug-related crime in New York. The need for
reform was evident 20 years ago, and if the hearing helps to move the
Legislature off the dime on this, it will have achieved much. The Senate
has been a long-standing obstacle, in part because emptier prisons could
hurt some upstate communities.
The chief problem with the existing drug laws is that they employ
incarceration and rigidity in sentencing as an answer to the drug crime
problem. Tough laws are important — they have helped reduce crime in New
York as well as the prison population.
But current laws focus far too much on slapping long prison sentences
on low-level drug sellers or buyers. That doesn't get to the kingpins
and pushes people into prison who should be getting treatment. The cost
to the state is sizable — $35,000 to keep someone in prison for a year
as opposed to a residential drug treatment program at about $20,000 a
year.
The thought 35 years ago was that tough medicine would cure all ills.
That hasn't worked.
It's time for a new package of drug laws that reflects all that this
state and nation have learned since 1973 about how to cope with this
societal woe.
The AWEARNESS Blog provides daily updates under four
socially-aware pillars of discussion: Social Rights, Well-Being, Political
Landscape and Hard Times.
If ever there was a time when the draconian
Rockefeller Drug laws in New York State
might be reformed, or, better yet,
altogether repealed, then that time would
now. The ravages of that law on Latino and
African-American communities, which are
disproportionately affected, are vast. But
don't hold your breath. Every winter, like
clockwork, this issue has come up on the
political radar of the New York State
Assembly, but little has changed.
Politicians, especially from rural or
upstate districts, don't want to be
portrayed by their opposition as soft on
such a fundamental law-and-order issue. And,
we cannot fail to note cynically, the jobs
at prisons that these laws create in rural
upstate districts makes for another
disincentive for reform. Governors have come
to Albany and gone, and yet the Rockefeller
Drug law remains, seemingly adamantine.
On May 3, 1973, when murder and robbery
rates were
significantly higher than they are now,
then-Governor Rockefeller signed the bill
containing some of the harshest drug laws in
the nation. Rockefeller, a moderate
Republican, was, at the time, mulling a
White House run and wanted to toughen up his
country club image among the party's
red-meat base. The Rockefeller drug laws
have largely remained, despite protests from
so many
disparate organizations and
individuals, because of law-and-order
electoral realities at the local level.
"Under these laws," wrote
Anthony Papa, an ex-convict, in the
Gotham Gazette, "people convicted of
drug offenses face the same penalties as
those convicted of murder, and harsher
penalties than those convicted of rape."
Papa spent a dozen years in the New York
prison system under the Rockefeller Laws on
a first-time non-violent drug offense. He
has devoted his life to reforming those
laws. Papa's prison autobiography is called
"15 to Life: How I Painted
My Way Top Freedom." That title comes
from the fact that Rockefeller Drug Law
statutes generally require judges to impose
minimum 15-years to life sentences for
anyone convicted of selling two ounces, or
possessing four ounces of a "narcotic drug
(marijuana included)."
Democrat Assemblyman Joseph R.
Lentol, who voted against the laws
in 1973, told Clyde Heberman
of
The New York Times, "We're on the
precipice of real Rockefeller law reform."
As of 2008, at a cost of hundreds of
millions of dollars, 14,000 people, or
nearly 38% of state prisoners, are
incarcerated for drug offenses. Last
Thursday was 35th anniversary of the
Rockefeller Law.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
In
addition, another issue raised over the 35 years of experience New York has had
under its drug laws is whether authorizing judges to sentence drug-addicted
persons convicted of crimes to treatment as an alternative to incarceration
would help break the cycle of addiction and crime and make our streets, homes
and communities safer. Furthermore, more effective prison-based drug treatment
programs may reduce the rate of recidivism among formerly incarcerated substance
abusers and improve their prospects for successful reentry into the community.
Such reforms may also produce significant fiscal savings by reducing
correctional costs and the dependence on public assistance dollars thereby
allowing the state to invest necessary resources in community-based alternative
to incarceration and drug treatment programs.
This
hearing will provide an opportunity to take a fresh look at New York’s drug laws
and examine how the criminal justice, social service and health systems treat
drug abusers.
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?
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.
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)
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.
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 criticism from many sources," Edward G. Griffin, counsel to
Gov. Al Smith, wrote in 1928.
When Smith ran for president that year, he was attacked for his record number
of clemencies in 1924: 92 pardons and 79 commutations of sentences.
Gangi said Spitzer's approach is particularly vexing to prison advocates who
applauded his campaign platform of repealing the Rockefeller Drug Laws and
reforming Pataki's harsh stance on parole.
"We applaud the governor for appointing progressive people to key criminal
justice positions in his administration," Gangi said. "But that has not yet
translated into his taking progressive positions, and I hope this doesn't signal
that he's taking a hard-line stance on criminal justice issues."
There are other avenues for inmates; Cheri O'Donoghue tried several ways on
behalf of her son, Ashley, 24, who was denied clemency by Spitzer after serving
four years of a 7-to-21-year sentence on a cocaine sale conviction while he was
a student at Hamilton College.
"It's a shame because I expected a whole lot more out of Governor Spitzer
based on his inaugural speech about Day One," said O'Donoghue, of Manhattan, who
volunteers as a prisoner advocate.
Her son applied and was accepted for a work-release program. He'll be
transferred in February to a Manhattan facility that allows furloughs and other
privileges as a reward for good behavior.
"Luckily, we didn't pin all our hopes on Governor Spitzer because he's not
the savior that prison families expected after all those years of Pataki," she
said. Grondahl can be reached at 454-5623 or by e-mail at
pgrondahl@timesunion.com.
Drug law reform activists are furious at Gov. Eliot Spitzer for declining to
grant any clemencies during his first year in office, saying that flies in the
face of a promise his made during the 2006 campaign to "continue to support
efforts to reform these laws."
"This is a cold-heart, hard-line approach to sentencing issues that we hope
does not reflect whatever posture he ultimately takes on the drug laws," said
Robert Gangi, executive director of the Correctional Association of New York, an
organization chartered by the Legislature to monitor conditions in the state’s
prisons and issue reports on prison-related issues.
Gangi compared Spitzer to Ebenezer Scrooge before he’s visited by the ghost
of Jacob Marley."
That position that is shared by the George Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance,
which issued a press release yesterday that included quotes from Anthony Papa <
"I know first-hand how meaningful a holiday clemency can be," Papa said. "For
the last ten years, I’ve been a productive member of society instead of being
locked in a cage for a first-time, nonviolent offense, costing taxpayers nearly
half a million dollars. The governor, with one stroke of his pen, can allow
others to have the same opportunity that I had."
Unlike a pardon, which erases a conviction from the records, a clemency
merely reduces an offender’s sentence. The Parole Board must sign off on
clemencies, but historically it has rarely opposed a governor’s wishes.
According to Spitzer spokeman Errol Cockfield, who confirmed the governor
does not intend to grant any clemencies this year, the Spitzer administration
received some 333 clemency requests as of Nov. 1, 2007.
NOTE: That number is updated with information from the state Division of
Parole, which is the entry point for these applications.
"We review each clemency application carefully and come to a decision on a
case by case basis," Cockfield said, noting that applicants must meet basic
criteria such as having served a minimum of one year in prison and not already
being eligible for parole.
Drug law advocates were particularly concerned about Spitzer’s failure to
issue any clemencies because it comes on the heels of a preliminary report from
his Commission on Sentencing Reform that included no drug law reform
recommendations.
The governor could have "sent a message" by granting clememcy to one or more
offenders serving time under the drug laws, Gangi said, but his decision not to,
coupled with his virtual silence on the topic in general and the commission’s
decision to bypass it, does not bode well for this issue in the future.
UPDATE2: The administration also helpfully provided some stats on clemencies
past, which appear after the jump.
Re "Spitzer Pardons Ex-Convict to Spare Him Deportation" (news article, Dec.
22):
Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s attempt to show compassion this holiday season fell way
off the mark. Mr. Spitzer’s single pardon to an individual set free 10 years
ago, coupled with the fact that he did not grant one clemency, was nothing more
than a safe political move.
There are many nonviolent Rockefeller drug law offenders who have already
served lengthy sentences but are stuck in prison because of a continuing
political quagmire. Traditionally, these offenders have been granted clemency at
Christmastime.
Former Gov. George Pataki, who was known for his toughness on crime, granted
clemencies to 28 of them, including me. To give none of those offenders who
applied for clemency a chance to be united with their families is a crying
shame.
Anthony Papa
New York, Dec. 24, 2007
The writer is a communications specialist at the Drug Policy Alliance.
Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer’s approval
rating is at an all-time low of 36 percent, according to a survey by
the Siena College Research Institute. This is a far cry from his 69
percent approval rating when he took office. The survey polled about
1,000 voters in December, of which 47 percent said the governor
should become a “kinder, gentler governor.” But 41 percent of
Republicans said they doubt whether the transformation can be made.
The question I pose is: “How can
Spitzer counter his downward spiral and start winning back the
voters of New York State?” One answer is to show the citizens of New
York that, despite the negativity generated from the trials and
tribulations of his governorship, he is still an individual who
shows compassion for others. Compassion, a virtue found in many
great leaders, is said to be not sentiment but the act of making
justice through works of mercy.
This holiday season, I recommend that
Spitzer go on a personal rescue mission and grant executive clemency
to the large number of Rockefeller Drug Law prisoners who have fully
rehabilitated themselves and already have served large amounts of
time behind bars under the draconian provisions of mandatory minimum
sentencing.
In granting a record number of
clemencies, Spitzer would be following in the wake of recent trends
that favor reducing racial disparities precipitated by the War on
Drugs. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court returned to judges
their discretion over following the rigid structure of federal
sentencing guidelines in drug cases, and the U.S. Sentencing
Commission created changes in crack cocaine sentencing that would
retroactively set free 20,000 prisoners.
Traditionally, at Christmas time New
York’s governor grants executive clemency to a number of
individuals. Former Republican Gov. George E. Pataki granted 32 in
his career, with 28 of them being Rockefeller Drug Law prisoners
(point of disclosure: I was one of them). Gov. Mario Cuomo granted
33 and Gov. Hugh Carey gave out 155.
If granted clemency, a prisoner
immediately becomes eligible for parole. Although parole is not
guaranteed, the New York State Parole Board has released the
majority of prisoners whose sentences were commuted.
Today there are almost 14,000
individuals imprisoned under the Rockefeller Drug Laws; 90 percent
of them are black and Latino. Despite two minor reforms in 2004 and
2005, a welcomed first step, the majority of Rockefeller prisoners
were not touched by the changes. For many who have fallen through
the cracks, their only hope to regain their freedom is through the
act of executive clemency.
There will be many families praying
this holiday season that Spitzer shows his compassion for those who
have taken it upon themselves to improve their lives and are ready
to re-enter society as productive citizens.
Anthony Papa is
the author of “15 to Life”and a communications specialist for
theDrug Policy Alliance.
FLASH!!!! December 19, 2007 A Call to governor
spitzer to grant executive clemency to rockefeller offenders who have fallen in
the cracks of a political Quagmire
Finally, the Supreme Court has positively reacted to the cruelty of a bad
sentencing law that has been tossed around between legislatures and the courts
for 20 years. In that time, an alarming number of people's lives have been
destroyed by racially discriminatory crack-cocaine laws that disproportionately
sentenced people of color. However, the decision to give judges more power to
use sentencing discretion is only a first step in correcting these clearly
draconian laws that were constructed because of the politics of the drug war. I
hope it sends a clear message to prosecutors that mandatory minimum sentences
are a part of an archaic judicial structure that needs to be overhauled in the
name of justice.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission has
acknowledged the obvious: that penalties for possession of "crack" cocaine, as
opposed to the powdered kind, amount to racist law designed to
disproportionately incarcerate African Americans. Despite the Sentencing
Commission's recommendation that Congress repeal its racist crack cocaine
laws, the U.S. Justice Department resists righting the historical wrong, warning
that release of crack offenders would open "the flood gates of hell." Rather,
Bush's demonic bureaucrats rush to defend the citadels of the American Black
Prison Gulag, an abomination unmatched on the planet - slavery's incarnation in
the 21st Century.
Change Racist Crack Cocaine Laws
by Anthony Papa
"Only the U.S. Congress can
eliminate the racist sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine."
Does the number 1 equal 100? In common
math it does not, but when you are talking federal drug sentencing it
unfortunately does. If you distribute just five grams of crack, it carries a
minimum five-year federal prison sentence. If you distribute 500 grams of powder
cocaine, it carries the same sentence. This 100:1 sentencing disparity has been
condemned for its racially discriminatory impact by a wide array of criminal
justice and civil rights groups. Hispanics and whites make up the majority of
crack cocaine users, but the majority of those convicted under crack cocaine
offenses are African Americans.
After
many years of heated debate over the issue of crack vs. powder cocaine
sentencing disparities, the
U.S. Sentencing Commission decided to ease the penalties for crack on
November 1, 2007. A hearing was held on November 13 to determine whether or not
to apply retroactively recommended revisions to the federal guidelines that
lowered the minimum sentences for crack cocaine-related offenses. If
recommended, about 4,000 prisoners will be released this year by shaving an
average of two years off their sentences, with almost 16,000 to follow. In
theory, it would be the largest single act to reduce the sentences of federal
prisoners.
"The Justice Department quickly
put out a statement saying that the proposed changes to the law would put
thousands of violent criminals back on the streets."
Critics
were quick to exploit the age-old defensive argument that the flood gates of
hell would be opened if such an action were to become law. The Justice
Department quickly put out a statement saying that the proposed changes to the
law would put thousands of violent criminals back on the streets. The National
Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys warned that by freeing thousands of
prisoners it would overburden prosecutors. Advocates rebutted saying that if
the law is passed it will be a small step towards mitigating the sentence
disparity between crack and powder cocaine, which disproportionately affects
people of color. Even federal judges like Chief Justice Robert Pratt of Iowa,
has said that talk of a sudden large amount of freed prisoners was inflated, and
that workloads should not prevent creating fair sentencing in crack cocaine
cases that serves the interests of justice.
Some say
that Congress probably did not set out to pass racially discriminatory crack
cocaine laws some twenty years ago. Whether or not these laws were created with
the intention of targeting African Americans, let's make no mistake about it: it
has. Jasmine Tyler, deputy director of national affairs for the Drug Policy
Alliance, said, "We are encouraged by the U.S. Sentencing Commission's
commitment to do what is in their power to address harsh crack cocaine
sentences, and we are hopeful that the Commission will apply this relief
retroactively. However, only the U.S. Congress can eliminate the racist
sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine sentences and we implore
them to do so now."
"Pharmacologically they are the
same drug."
The
unfair sentencing that is in effect was enacted based on the many myths that
surround crack use. These included media stories that told of a "crack baby"
epidemic in the 1980s, stories now found to be greatly exaggerated or flat-out
lies. Research now shows that factors such as smoking and drinking,
malnutrition, inadequate sleep, and poverty are responsible for the many
pre-natal ailments associated with crack use. Criminal penalties for possession
and sales of cocaine are severe. But the penalties for crack cocaine are much
more severe, despite the fact that pharmacologically they are the same drug. If
these suggested changes, take affect and are applied retroactively, it will do a
lot to balance the scales of justice in reforming a bad law that has dished out
unfair sentences to people convicted of crack cocaine offenses.
Anthony Papa is the author of "15
to Life" and a communications specialist for the
Drug Policy Alliance. He can be contacted at
tpapa@drugpolicy.orgThis e-mail address is being
protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .
NEW YORK
-- What does the war on drugs have to do with baseball? Just
ask Barry Bonds who was just indicted by federal prosecutors
on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
Bonds is now facing up to 30
years in prison if convicted. Anti-doping advocates,
including America’s deputy drug czar, are calling for jail
time for baseball players who use steroids saying that it
may be the only effective deterrent for curbing illegal use.
Let’s face it, while Bonds’s
indictment for lying to a grand jury may have legal basis,
the real underlying reason for this federal indictment four
years after the BALCO investigation is their failure to get
Bonds to admit he had used steroids or any other
performance-enhancing drugs.
In that case a business named
Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO) was alleged to be
distributing illegal performance -- enhancing drugs was
investigated by several governmental agencies. This
resulted in a huge scandal which involved many major league
baseball players and led to Major League Baseball initiating
penalties for players caught using steroids in 2004.
Well now the government is
ready to take down the home-run king along with the entire
sport of baseball by pushing their personal agenda of a zero
tolerance for drug use.
Travis Tygart, head of the
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency thinks that Major League Baseball’s
rules concerning the use of performance-enhancing drugs such
as steroids don’t pack enough of a wallop in terms of
functioning as a real deterrent. He is rooting for Bonds to
be imprisoned so it sends a clear message.
Imprisonment of
record-breaking hitters like Bonds will not solve baseball’s
problem. I know this is true because of the failed war on
drugs. The United States has the highest incarceration rate
in the world.
It has 5% of the world’s
population, but 25% of the world’s prisoners, with more than
2.3 million citizens sitting behind bars, a rate of one in
every 136 U.S. residents.
About 55% of all federal and
over 20% of all state prisoners are convicted of drug-law
violations with many of them serving mandatory-minimum
sentences for simple possession offences. And despite all
of the incarceration drug use and drug availability are as
prevalent as ever. Are we now going to add major league
players to drug war statistics?
For the sake of argument, what
if Bonds did use steroids? Does he belong in jail? He is
not the first athlete to use them and he will not be the
last. The pursuit for athletic superiority through the use
of chemicals has been around a long time. Before steroids
were officially banned in the early 1970’s, almost 70% of
all Olympic athletes had used them.
Is it ethical and morally
right to sentence someone to a lengthy prison term for
putting substances in their own bodies? The premise for
prosecuting the other war with no exit strategy – the drug
war -- has slowly but surely infiltrated the public’s eye
through different vehicles.
Now the feds attempt to bring
their message through the sport of baseball. Bonds joins
the ranks of the demonized including medical marijuana
users, pain sufferers and their doctors who prescribe opioid
analgesics, and students who are forced to urinate in cups.
All of this in the name of a drug-free America without
concern for individuals’ rights.
At one time baseball was our
obsession. It was a sport that walked hand and hand with
the American dream full of heroes of whom we could all be
proud.
Now the federal government,
with its crusade against any and all drug use, has begun a
new mission to alter our way of thinking no matter what the
cost or how many lives are ruined. I say no to the
government for trying to destroy our national past time and
no to imprisoning a baseball king.
Anthony Papa
is a communications specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance
and the author of “15 to Life”.
Flash! 11/20/2207
Putting Pressure on the Sentencing Commission/ The op-ed below was
published in the three cities where the sentencing commission held public
hearings sending them a message to address Rockefeller Drug Law reform
Buffalo NY/ Albany NY/ NYC!
chambers’ arrest highlights need for further reforms
Buffalo News, United States -
Nov 14, 2007
by anthony papa robert chambers spent 15 years in prison
for the notorious murder of jennifer levin, whom he claimed he accidentally
strangled during rough ...
no time to waste in sentencing issue
Albany Times Union, NY - Nov
10, 2007 ... details of his 1986 slaying case will have no
sympathy for chambers. what's most outrageous about this case, though, is that
chambers faces more time...
There has been an onslaught of press attention following the arrest of
"Preppy Killer" Robert Chambers due to, this time, selling cocaine. One fact
that has been omitted from the coverage is that Chambers now faces more time for
selling drugs under the Rockefeller Drug Laws than he did for the murder he
committed in 1986.
Chambers served 15 years in prison for the notorious murder of Jennifer
Levin. He claimed that he accidentally strangled Levin during rough sex. Despite
his horrific crime, Chambers was allowed to plead guilty to first-degree
manslaughter instead of second-degree murder and was sentenced to serve between
five and 15 years in prison. He wound up serving 15 years because of bad
behavior, which included smuggling and selling drugs while in prison.
Now, 21 years later, Chambers has been arrested again, this time for selling
cocaine to undercover officers. He faces top felony counts that can mean life in
prison. As the case unfolds, it is evident that Chambers, along with his
girlfriend, Shawn Kovell, who also was arrested, are both heavily addicted to
drugs. They were described as "crackheads" by detectives who searched their
disheveled Upper East Side apartment.
Despite significant evidence against him, Chambers has pleaded not guilty to
multiple charges of selling cocaine that can land him sentences of between 15
and 30 years for each of the highest counts under the Rockefeller Drug Laws. So,
if he is found guilty of the multiple charges, he could be spending the rest of
his life in prison.
Those who remember the details of his 1986 case will have no sympathy for
Chambers who has a history of drug addiction. A year after his release in 2003,
he was arrested again while driving with a suspended license. Officers found
drug residue in his car. He pled guilty to the charges and served 100 days on a
misdemeanor charge. The most outrageous fact of all of Chambers's cases is that
he faces more time for a drug offense under the Rockefeller Drug Laws than he
did for taking Levin's life.
Despite two minor reforms made by the legislature in 2004 and 2005 that
slightly reduced the length of most drug sentences, there are 14,000 individuals
in prison sentenced under the Rockefeller drug laws. Many of them are nonviolent
offenders and are serving longer sentences than people who commit rape or
murder. There is something very wrong with this equation.
For example, Ashley O'Donoghue, a first time non-violent offender sold a
small amount of drugs to two students at Hamilton College in upstate New York in
2003. The students got arrested, but worked out a deal with prosecutors that
gave them probation. O'Donoghue, however, is serving a seven to 21-year
sentence.
The reforms by the legislature, though, did not provide the needed relief for
the vast majority of Rockefeller offenders. For example it reduced the highest
sentences from 15 years to life to between eight and 20 years. The reforms also
made some long-term drug offenders eligible for retroactive relief.
Since 1973 when the Rockefeller Laws were enacted, we have witnessed the
creation of a drug-law gulag fed by a poorly conceived law that incarcerated
many drug offenders from the inner city neighborhoods of New York. This helped
to create smart upstate politicians who saw the Rockefeller Drug Laws as a tool
to make the business of imprisonment a major industry in their districts
— creating a
disincentive in the legislature to reform these laws.
The recent reform did not provide funding to increase the availability of
community based drug treatment. It did not increase the power of judges to place
addicts into treatment programs. It also did not provide relief for the 4,000
B-drug felons: Out of the 1,000 individuals that became eligible for retroactive
relief, only about 350 individuals have been freed to date because of procedural
road blocks created by district attorneys.
Governor Spitzer recently put together a panel to study the disparity of
sentencing guidelines in New York State. One of the issues was the Rockefeller
Drug Laws. But in its recently released preliminary report, the commission
failed even to address the issue of Rockefeller Drug Law reform. State
commissioner of criminal justice services and chairwoman of the Commission on
Sentencing Reform, Denise O'Donnell, said the issue would be addressed next
time. The final report is due in March of 2008.
But the evidence is already in, and the issue does not need any more studies.
It needs political will and action. The Spitzer panel must consider the families
of those incarcerated, and the precious tax dollars being wasted on the court's
archaic sentencing structure. Hundreds of nonviolent Rockefeller offenders in
prison are serving longer sentences than those of convicted murderers.
Something is fundamentally wrong with a system that advocates serving more
time for a nonviolent drug offense then for a hideous crime committed by a
sociopath like Robert Chambers. On November 13, individuals affected by the
Rockefeller Drug Laws will come together to speak at a public hearing conducted
by the sentencing commission at the New York City Bar Association. Their message
to the commission will be this: the problem needs to be fixed now
— not "next time."
Mr. Papa, the author of "15 to Life," is a communications specialist for the
Drug Policy Alliance.
_________________
Commission Urges
Lawmakers to Appeal Sentencing Laws
NEW YORK, NY
November 13, 2007 —Former inmates and prison reformers were on hand today as the
New York Sentencing Reform Commission held a hearing on possibly reforming the
so-called Rockefeller drug laws.
REPORTER: The
state has stiff sentencing rules that don't allow judges flexibility and put
many people behind bars, who might be better served in treatment programs.
Anthony Papa
speaks from experience. He says he was behind bars for 12 years for carrying 4
ounces of cocaine
PAPA: These laws
don't work, they incarcerate too many blacks and latinos. It's costly,
ineffective, treatment has been shown to be better and we need to change these
laws.
REPORTER: There
are two more hearings on sentencing reform in the state. They're in Albany and
Buffalo over the next week. The Commission is tasked with making recommendations
to the governor in the spring. There are nearly 14,000 people jailed for drug
offenses in New York State prisons. They represent about 38 percent of the
prison population.
____________________________
Albany Times Union
Time
is now for drug sentencing reform
Wednesday, October 24,
2007
In response to
your Oct. 15 editorial, "This time, real reform":
The state
commission's preliminary report failed to address the issue of Rockefeller
Drug Law reform. Denise O'Donnell, state commissioner of criminal justice
services and chairwoman of the Commission on Sentencing Reform, said the
issue would be addressed next time.
I am an activist
who has been involved in fighting for reform since 1985, when I was
convicted of a nonviolent drug offense and sentenced to 15 years to life. I
have heard the same story from several governors and the Legislature for
many years.
The evidence is
in. The issue does not need any more studies. It needs political will and
action. The panel must consider the families of those incarcerated, those
rotting away in prison and the valuable tax dollars being wasted on its
archaic sentencing structure. We are tired of hearing "next time."
ANTHONY
PAPA
New York
The writer is author of "15 to Life."
_______________
Flash! October 17,
2007 Sentencing Commission fails to address the Rockefeller
Drug Laws!
The state commission’s
preliminary report failed to address the issue of Rockefeller drug reform.
Denise O'Donnell, state
commissioner of criminal justice services and chairwoman of the Commission on
Sentencing Reform said that the issue would be addressed next time. I am an
activist who has been involved in fighting for reform since 1985 when I was
convicted of a non-violent drug offense and sentenced to 15 years to life. I
have heard the same story from several governors and the legislature for many
years. The evidence is in, the issue does not need any more studies, it needs
political will and action. The panel must consider the families of those
incarcerated, those rotting away in prison and the valuable tax dollars being
wasted on its archaic sentencing structure. We are tried of hearing
“next time”.
_________
Poughkeepsie Journal (New York)
October 17, 2007 Wednesday
Panel: Streamline sentencing laws
BYLINE: Cara Matthews
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 2A
LENGTH: 591 words
ALBANY - New York needs to simplify its "virtually unintelligible"
sentencing system and should permit community treatment rather than prison terms
for certain non-violent felony drug offenders, a state sentencing-reform panel
recommended Tuesday.
Sentencing laws have not received a thorough review and revision in more
than 40 years and have developed into an "overly complex, Byzantine system that
is fraught with opportunities for injustice," said Denise O'Donnell, state
commissioner of criminal justice services and chairwoman of the Commission on
Sentencing Reform.
O'Donnell said in the report the system has become "virtually
unintelligible"
in many cases to judges, attorneys, defendants and victims.
"We could perform a significant service to the criminal-justice system if
we could arrive at a consensus about how we could simplify the sentencing
structure," she said Tuesday.
Spitzer formed the 11-member panel this year to study whether punishments
fit the crimes and protect public safety in New York. Besides prison sentences,
the panel has been reviewing community supervision, alternatives to
incarceration and other parts of the criminal-justice system.
The report said the current system is the result of decades of "piecemeal
amendments arising more often from political than criminal justice policy
considerations." The complicated sentencing laws, the mix of determinate, or
fixed, and indeterminate, or variable, sentences, and "back-door early release
mechanisms" all contribute to the problem, it said.
The commission report released Tuesday is preliminary. The panel will hold
public hearings before issuing a final report March 1. Any significant change
would need legislative approval.
Recommendations include:
* End indeterminate sentencing for more than 200 non-violent felonies.
With fixed sentences, a judge imposes a prison term with a minimum and maximum
and the parole board decides when the offender is released.
* Allow courts to send certain non-violent drug-addicted felony offenders
to community-based treatment instead of state prison if the judge, prosecutor
and defendant agree.
* Consider a broader use of "graduated sanctions" - curfew, home
confinement and electronic monitoring, for example - rather than prison for
certain parolees who violate one or more conditions of release but don't commit
a new crime.
* Pass new laws and step up enforcement of existing statutes to further
protect crime victims.
* Help reduce recidivism and increase public safety by expanding
educational and vocational training and improving employment and housing
opportunities for offenders.
* Establish a permanent sentencing commission to advise the legislative
and executive branches.
O'Donnell, Spitzer's assistant secretary for criminal justice, said the
commission is mindful of the financial impact of its proposals. "I believe we
are all operating on the understanding that if we could reduce recidivism,
continue to reduce the prison population," then the state could invest money
into other programs to help offenders, she said.
Gabriel Sayegh, program director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said his
group is disappointed the report does not include any "substantive
recommendations" on the Rockefeller-era drug laws.
The laws, which many people have called harsh and unreasonable, were
passed in 1973 under then-Gov. Nelson Rockefeller. The Legislature made some
changes to them in 2004 and 2005, but the Drug Policy Alliance and other groups
have said lawmakers did not go far enough.
Why Colombia's top drug lord may get off easier than small-time offenders in the
U.S.
The U.S. government recently praised the arrest of Colombia's top drug lord
Diego Montoya when he was captured earlier this month. Law enforcement and
military officials say it was a powerful blow to Colombia's most powerful drug
cartel, comparing it to the capture of Al Capone during Prohibition.
Montoya, who had been on the FBI's top ten most wanted list, is said to be
responsible for providing as much as 70 percent of all the cocaine in the United
States. In 1999, a $5 million bounty for his capture and extradition was offered
after he was indicted in a federal court in Miami.
There is much talk about how this capture will affect the drug trade and the
flow of drugs into the United States. But the question on my mind is how much
time will he serve when he is brought to the United States to stand trial for
the death and destruction he has caused? I would be willing to bet that he will
get less time than many Americans who are now serving extraordinarily long
sentences, many for low-level, nonviolent drug law violations under the
notorious mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Some would ask how would I come to
this conclusion.
If you look at the recently completed federal sentence of former Panamanian
dictator Manuel Noriega, who served a 17-year federal sentence for drug
trafficking, it might give you a hint what is in store for Montoya. In Noriega's
case the U.S. attorney negotiated deals with 26 high-level drug dealers,
including drug lord Carlos Lehder. They in turn received a package of perks that
included leniency and cash payments, and were allowed to keep their drug
earnings in return for testimony against the infamous general who was once a
strong United States ally before he fell from grace in 1989, when the U.S.
invaded Panama.
There are many Americans in prison that are serving sentences of more than 17
years in prison for simple drug crimes. These are marginalized offenders that
don't have the bargaining chips to establish deals. For example, Elaine
Bartlett, a mother of four, served a 20-to-life sentence under the Rockefeller
Drug Laws for seven ounces of cocaine. Her husband, Nathan Brooks, was sentenced
to 25 years to life. The list goes on and on. There are an estimated 500,000
Americans locked up because of the drug war. Many of them are serving lengthy
sentences because of a 30-year government campaign to demonize illicit drug use
and implement mandatory minimum sentencing.
In 1986, mandatory minimum sentencing laws were enacted by Congress, which
compelled judges to deliver fixed sentences to individuals convicted of certain
crimes, regardless of mitigating factors or culpability. Federal mandatory drug
sentences are determined based on three factors: the type of drug, weight of the
drug mixture (or alleged weight in conspiracy cases), and the number of prior
convictions. Judges are unable to consider other important factors, such as the
offender's role, motivation and the likelihood of recidivism.
The push to incarcerate drug offenders has been further exacerbated through
the current federal sentencing law that punishes crack cocaine offenders much
more severely than offenders possessing other types of drugs, for example,
powder cocaine. Distributing just five grams of crack carries a minimum
five-year federal prison sentence while distributing 500 grams of powder cocaine
carries the same sentence. This 100:1 sentencing disparity has been almost
universally criticized for its racially discriminatory impact by a wide variety
of criminal justice and civil rights groups, and in Congress. Although whites
and Hispanics form the majority of crack users, the vast majority of those
convicted for crack cocaine offenses are African Americans.
Because of the war on drugs, which mandates mandatory minimum sentencing,
average drug offenders are routinely elevated to kingpin status and condemned to
serve out long prison sentences that should be reserved only for actual drug
kingpins, not individuals that are fabricated to that level. It's time to end
these draconian laws and implement a sentencing structure that promotes fairness
and justice.
MANHATTAN.
Cheri O’Dono-ghue hopes Gov. Eliot Spitzer will make good on his campaign
pledge to reform the state’s prison sentencing laws.
Her son Ashley already served
four years of his seven-to-21-year sentence after being caught in a sting
operation delivering roughly five ounces of cocaine to two Hamilton College
students. O’Donoghue believes his sentence — meted out under the so-called
Rockefeller drug laws — was excessive for the nonviolent crime of her
20-year-old, who had no record.
Spitzer established the New York
State Commission on Sentencing Reform last March to review sentencing
policies and study alternatives to incarceration. Examining the Rockefeller
laws are high on its list for a closed-door meeting this week on a first
round of recommendations it will make public in October. The final report is
expected in March 2008.
“I am totally for a major
overhaul because these laws are inhumane,” O’Donoghue said during a
conference call yesterday with members of the Real Reform Coalition, a group
of advocates, academics and families fighting to repeal the laws. “They
destroy the lives of many New Yorkers, like my family.”
The coalition sent an open
letter to the sentencing reform commission yesterday calling for restoration
of judges’ discretion in drug cases rather than mandatory minimum
sentencing. They want reduction in drug offense sentences, retroactive
sentencing relief for prisoners locked up under Rockefeller laws and more
community-based treatment and alternative-to-incarceration programs.
“Ashley is someone who deserves
a second chance,” O’Donoghue said. “Certainly the two Hamilton College boys”
— who were enlisted in the sting after getting caught buying 2.6 ounces of
cocaine — “got a second chance.” Police asked them to buy twice that amount,
she believes, so they could make a “trumped up charge.”
Many prosecutors oppose changing
the laws, saying they’ve helped reduce crime and that many homicides are
related to drug sales. They worry that any repeals could release kingpins to
the streets.
“Drug kingpins will rarely carry
drugs,” said Bob Gangi, executive director of the Correction Association of
New York watchdog group, “whereas a teenage mother employed by a kingpin
will carry a relatively small amount of drugs and will likely serve a long
prison sentence.”
The breakdown
Since the Rockefeller drug laws
were enacted in 1973, more than 14,000 people have been sent to prison —
roughly 38 percent of the prison population. Some reforms were made in 2004
and 2005, and nearly 350 drug offenders were released.
Democrat and Chronicle
August 29, 2007
Advocates seek reform
in 'unjust' drug laws
State panel meets
today to work on proposed changes to Rockefeller rules
Cara Matthews
Albany bureau
ALBANY — As a state commission deliberates
how to update New York's sentencing practices, a coalition of civil
liberties and drug treatment and policy groups Tuesday asked for shorter
terms and more community-based programs to help offenders.
The organizations, which include the Drug
Policy Alliance and the New York Civil Liberties Union, said changes to
the Rockefeller-era drug laws in 2004 and 2005 to reduce sentences and
parole did not go far enough.
"They're unfair, unjust and cruel," Donna
Lieberman, head of the Civil Liberties Union, said of the drug laws.
"And ... they destroy lives rather than rehabilitating them. They are
enforced with blatant racial and ethnic bias."
More than 14,000 people are in prison for
drug crimes, 38 percent of the prison population. Black and Hispanic
people comprise more than 90 percent of people current in prison for
drug felonies, the groups said.
The state Commission on Sentencing Reform,
formed earlier this year by Gov. Eliot Spitzer, is reviewing whether
punishments fit the crimes and protect public safety in New York. The
panel is also looking at community supervision, alternatives to prison
and other aspects of the criminal-justice system.
The panel meets today to start hashing out
recommendations of its subcommittees. Its preliminary report is due Oct.
1, and the final report, March 1.
"The sentencing commission is the best
chance in many years to address the unfairness, inequity and outright
incoherence of our current sentencing structure," said Sen. Eric
Schneiderman, D-Manhattan, a member of the commission.
Schneiderman said he wants the state to
expand judges' ability to order treatments proven to be effective for
drug offenders and other non-violent offenders.
Members of the Real Reform Coalition,
which submitted an open letter to the commission Tuesday, said they are
hoping the panel will come up with significant recommendations on drug
laws. They were passed in 1973 under then-Gov. Nelson Rockefeller to
shut down drug "kingpins," but most people incarcerated are convicted of
low-level, non-violent offenses. Many have no prior criminal records,
they said.
The groups want the following:
Restoration of judges' ability to decide the
length of sentences in drug cases, rather than go by mandatory minimum
sentencing guidelines, which don't allow consideration of a person's
special circumstances.
Expansion of alternative-to-incarceration
programs, including community-based treatment. Treatment funding has
been flat for two decades.
Reduction in the length of sentences for all drug
offenses.
Expansion of eligibility for current prisoners
convicted of drug offenses to ask the courts to review and potentially
reduce their terms.
"There are many, many people still serving
unconscionably long sentences with no opportunity for a retroactive
review," said Anita Marton of the Legal Action Center.
But Rockland County District Attorney
Michael Bongiorno said it would be a mistake to roll back penalties.
"The drug laws have been weakened enough. Any further weakening of the
drug laws will only serve to foster more drug dealing and endanger the
public," said Bongiorno, chairman of the board of directors for the
state District Attorneys Association.
Other points Bongiorno made include:
Prosecutors are in a better position than judges
to decide who should or shouldn't get drug treatment because they are
closer to the community.
Reducing sentences for the weight of drugs people
are arrested for has allowed drug dealers to run more drugs and receive
lower penalties. There has been an increase in the amount of drugs being
run upstate via the Thruway from New York City.
By GABRIEL SAYEGH
First published: Wednesday, August 22, 2007
While New York is focused
on other matters unfolding in Albany, an important process is
under way that could bring desperately needed changes to the
state's broken criminal justice system.
The state Commission on Sentencing Reform, established by
Gov. Eliot Spitzer, has an ambitious agenda focusing on criminal
justice reform.
At the top of this agenda are the infamous Rockefeller Drug
Laws. Over the next week, in non-public meetings, the commission
will receive and vote on a first round of recommendations, made
by a subcommittee. The commission will issue a preliminary
report in October; its final report is due in March.
The commission and its recommendations deserve intense
scrutiny by New Yorkers who care about effective and genuine
drug law reform.
Advocates working for real reform of the drug laws have
remained somewhat skeptical about the prospects for change under
the commission, and for good reason: Substantial evidence
backing "real reform" of drug laws already exists.
In 2004, then-Senate Democratic Leader David Paterson -- now
lieutenant governor -- released a report illustrating that New
York's drug laws were among the most draconian in the country.
The comprehensive report garnered the support of advocates,
academics and the media. Paterson introduced legislation to
enact report recommendations, but it died without even a public
hearing.
Over the last 34 years, numerous reports have been written
about the Rockefeller Drug Laws. The vast majority concluded
what most New Yorkers already know -- the laws are ineffective,
racist and unjust.
Almost all of the reports have recommended that the laws be
overhauled or repealed. Unfortunately, sound research and reason
have never been enough to compel Albany to act.
Perhaps this is why the governor established the commission
-- to build the bipartisan support needed to enact meaningful
reform. For this reason, despite our skepticism, drug law reform
advocates have provided testimony and research for the
commission.
The testimony highlighted four components that must be
included in any meaningful reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws:
Restoration of judicial discretion in drug cases: The
Rockefeller Drug Laws, which include the Second Felony Offender
Law, did not eliminate discretion; they simply shifted power
from judges to prosecutors.
Prosecutors have a vested interest in keeping these laws on
the books so they can garner information, seek assets forfeiture
and move cases expeditiously as a result of one-sided plea
negotiations conducted behind closed doors.
These actions help promote the severe racial disparities that
have become a hallmark of the laws: Over 91 percent of those
incarcerated under these laws are black and Latino, even though
whites use drugs at equal or slightly higher rates.
Sentencing reform: The half-step reforms of 2004 did not
affect the people most in need of a reform -- those convicted of
B-level offenses. Most individuals charged with B-level offenses
face mandatory prison sentences if convicted of selling or
possessing, with intent to sell, any amount of narcotic. The
probability of going to prison for such an offense is greater
than the probability of going to prison for a violent felony
offense.
Community-based drug treatment alternatives to incarceration:
In 2000, California voters passed a treatment-not-incarceration
initiative -- Proposition 36. Rather than being sent to prison,
more than 150,000 people have been placed in state-funded,
community-based drug treatment programs, saving state taxpayers
more than $1 billion.
Some prosecutors in New York argue that placing drug
offenders in tretment, rather than prison, will increase violent
crime. California's violent crime rate has dropped more than the
national average since the passage of Proposition 36.
Retroactivity: Nearly 14,000 people are incarcerated under the
Rockefeller Drug Laws. Most should be resentenced under an
equitable system that allows for treatment and rehabilitation.
These reforms fit into the commission's mandate, will protect
the public and will save the state money through better
management of our criminal justice resources.
If substantial drug sentencing reform is absent from the
commission's report, or if the recommendations are purely
cosmetic, the commission will have abdicated its responsibility
in favor of the failed status quo.
If the recommendations are worthwhile, but Albany again fails
to act, the report can serve New Yorkers in another way -- as a
very expensive paperweight.
Gabriel Sayegh is a project director at the Drug Policy
Alliance, a leading member of Real Reform New York.
The most painful
thing to Cheri O'Donaghue about her son's incarceration on drug charges
is not the imprisonment itself, but that he is serving the sentence that
should go to a narcotics kingpin when all he committed, she says, was
the crime of a small-time pusher. Her son Ashley was found guilty of
delivering cocaine to two college students in upstate New York in 2003.
He was sentenced to seven to 21 years in prison, a penalty mandated by
New York's controversial Rockefeller Drug Laws. Ashley is among about
14,000 people sent to New York prisons under the Rockefeller laws, in
force since 1973, which impose harsh mandatory minimum terms on even
first time offenders — meaning they could get the same sentence as a
person convicted of second degree murder.
O'Donaghue once
had hope for a positive change in her son's situation. That was because
there was a movement to change the Rockefeller laws. The momentum behind
that reform, however, has now stagnated as prosecutors and legislators
fear that changes in the law are being used as loopholes to free drug
lords. With no light at the end of the tunnel, she and other activists
fighting for a repeal feel the laws may never change and many of the
state's imprisoned — her son included — continue to languish in jail.
"The movement is definitely stalled, and we're trying to gain some
momentum again, but it's very hard," said O'Donaghue. "I never would
have dreamed in the beginning of this that it would have taken this long
to get Ashley out."
Right now, the
only hope for a change is a prison sentencing reform committee set up by
Gov. Eliot Spitzer that has only recently begun to hold preliminary
meetings and whose final report is not expected until early 2008. The
activists remain committed in their cause, but for now can only deal
with the frustration of having a loved one jailed under what they feel
are unfair rules. Critics say that the law ignores major drug dealers
and only imprisons minor players in the drug trade. For this reason,
they argue, it incarcerates a disproportionate number of minorities.
Indeed, since the laws were enacted, more than 90% of those sentenced
have been black or Latino, according to the group Real Reform New York.
Over the last
decade, activists, ex-convicts, families, politicians and even
celebrities have become increasingly vocal about the laws. Reforms to
the sentencing structure were enacted with the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act,
which allows for reduced retroactive sentencing, and at first seemed to
bring the laws closer to repeal. But they have only applied to about
1,000 people and only 350 have been released, says Anthony Papa, an
official with the Drug Policy Alliance, an advocacy group committed to
changing the nation's drug laws. The reforms, he says, were not enough
because the change applies to too few of the people currently serving
time.
"In my view as an
activist who experienced the law, this was sort of a buy off to satisfy
people who have been fighting for years," said Papa, who himself was
sentenced to 15 years to life after selling cocaine to undercover cops,
but granted clemency by then-Gov. George Pataki in 1997. "People saw it
was watered-down reform because it really destroyed the movement,
because now legislators have a tool they can use to say 'we have a law
now, lets move on. said Papa .
Instead of new
legislation, Gov. Spitzer's seven-member commission will conduct reviews
of the state's toughest sentencing practices, under which the
Rockefeller laws fall. But it is unlikely to bring about a full repeal
of the laws, leaving O'Donaghue to wonder if a change will ever come.
"These things keep carrying over and you just wonder when it's all going
to be done," O'Donaghue asked. "When we get the final report? After the
next legislative session?"
Activists like
O'Donaghue and Papa, argue the stiffest penalties should be reserved for
major narcotics traffickers, not small handlers. But the reason they
have gained little in their fight is that some state legislators believe
the changes in the law were enough and that many of those who have
already been released are really major drug traffickers who should still
be imprisoned, and further reform could prove dangerous.
"We did the reform
and as a result, we provided for discretion and reductions in
sentencing," said State Sen. George Winner, who explained that the
changes that already resulted in loopholes for people who once
controlled major drug operations. "I am not in favor of further
weakening the drug law sentencing provisions. I agree that the drug
kingpins should have the stiffest penalties, but some of them are using
the reforms to their advantage and getting out. As a result of these
things, I think we should go slow about it."
Bridget Brennan, a
special narcotics prosecutor in New York City has the same fear as
Winner that violent offenders and drug kingpins are beginning to win
reduced sentences. "There was a mythology about who is serving these
sentences," said Brennan, who was a homicide prosecutor during the
height of the city's crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s. "It was the
image of a woman forced to be a drug courier. But when we looked at
those applying to change their sentences, there were only two women: one
who supervised the shipment of 155 kilos of cocaine and the other had
more than a pound of cocaine in her apartment."
"There is no
statute to address the narcotics trafficker who we commonly see in New
York City," she said. "As a homicide prosecutor, 60% of my cases came
from drug sales. I don't want to see this city again the way it was."
Until they win a
change in sentencing guidelines, activists hope to win support for their
cause simply by spreading the word. They hope a planned wide release of
a documentary entitled Lockdown USA,
which premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in 2006, will help restart
a push for reform. "The problem is that they are using a prison cell to
address what should be public health issue," says Gabriel Sayegh, a
project director at the Drug Policy Alliance. "This isn't the criminal
justice system we're supposed to have in this country."
I am an American. I used to be a
proud one. This was before a realization that hit me hard concerning the
casualties of a dirty war. I am not talking about the war in Iraq. I am
talking about the other war -- the war on drugs. Every day, we see news
stories that expose the realities of drug use in America. From celebrities
to politicians to athletes and even ordinary people purchasing cold
medication, the drug war looms large.
Recently, I was invited to show my
art at
John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. The venue was
right up my alley. The two-day conference brought together art, music, film
and spoken-word performances centered on the theme, "A New Criminology for
the 21st century." I decided to create an art installation called, "The Drug
War."
The art installation was a
multimedia presentation of the most compelling drug war issues in the news.
Its use of visual narratives reminds us of the war on drugs that ravages our
communities. The installation began to take form, steeped in a motif of an
upside down American flag, which signifies the universal concept of the
state of distress during war. Several irate people stopped me to ask if I
had permission from the administration to "disgrace" the American flag. I
told them all I had a constitutional right to voice my opinion.
About two hours later a security
team approached me. The leader of the team said "Mr. Papa, you must
immediately take down the upside-down flags. I have been getting complaints
from faculty and students saying that you are disgracing the flag." I looked
at her and pointed out that I was doing nothing wrong. My art was not
disrespecting "old glory" because I displayed the upside-down flag for the
right reasons. According to the flag code section 36, U.S.C. chapter 10, I
was correct in my intentions of stating a signal of dire distress in
instances of extreme danger to
life or property. She looked at me with indifference while the four men
stood behind her standing in a military stance meant to intimidate me.
I immediately explained my position.
I told her about the 500,000 Americans who were behind bars because of the
war on drugs, and how this war ravages communities and destroys lives, all
in the name of a drug-free society. I explained how billions of dollars are
spent by the government to stop someone from putting substances in their
bodies.
I looked at her and then the guards
while pointing at the flags and said "I will not take the flags down."
The head of security huddled with
her crew while several sympathetic professors came to my aid. A meeting took
place and it was agreed that they had to take this to a higher authority. I
was asked to stop building my art installation while we waited for a verdict
from the president of the university. During that time, I had a flash back
to 12 years ago when something similar occurred in a maximum security prison
in New York when I was doing a 15-years-to-life sentence for passing an
envelope containing four ounces of cocaine in return for $500. My art was
confiscated by the prison guards, who told me I could not send out paintings
to the free world that depicted the atrocity of imprisonment.
My mind snapped back to the present
moment when one of the security guards tapped me on the shoulder. He said
that a decision was made and I was allowed to display the upside down flags.
I shook his hand and turned to the American flags and thought about the
greatness of our Constitution, which guarantees the freedom to express our
opinions, even if it meant turning the flag on its head to make a point.
OK, so you're rich and famous
and have a drug problem. You relapse and get arrested. What do you do?
It seems the latest trend in
countering your likely conviction is not hiring a "dream team" of legal
defenders but immediately enrolling in a rehab drug program.
Lindsay Lohan, the troubled
Hollywood starlet, joins a host of other high-profile celebrities, including
Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie and the son of the former vice president, Al
Gore III, who have adopted this novel strategy.
Lohan's pal, Paris, just did a
brief stint in jail for driving with a suspended license after a previous
drunk-driving arrest.
Nicole Richie recently pleaded
guilty to driving under the influence from an incident where she was caught
driving the wrong way down a Los Angeles freeway last year. She was
sentenced to four days in jail and mandated to enter a drug and alcohol
program.
Gore was recently arrested for
speeding down a highway in his Prius at 100 miles per hour with a small
amount of marijuana and a pocket full of different prescription pills. He
pleaded guilty to two felony counts of drug possession, among others, and
was allowed to enter a drug diversion program. If Gore successfully
completes that program, the charges may be dropped.
The role of drugs and drug
addiction loom large over these individuals' criminal cases since each
enrolled in rehab quickly after their brushes with the law.
Without question, rehab is an
essential tool on the road to recovery. It is a multi-tiered, long-term
process that enables changes to life patterns that typically trigger the
urge to get high. This requires time and effort by the participant.
Lohan was only out of rehab for
two weeks when she was busted again for driving under the influence and
cocaine possession. Her father, Michael, himself a former addict, was
recently released after serving a two-year sentence for a drunk-driving
incident. He said his daughter needs a long-term treatment plan to
successfully recover from her problems with alcohol and other drugs.
Many were quick to blame the
rehab center Lindsay attended, saying it failed her. But no rehab center can
produce miracles in such a short period of time.
What most fail to realize is
that relapse is an expected part of recovery. Treatment is valid for
fighting the demons of addiction and an effective tool in overcoming the
government's use of incarceration and punitive measures in response to
low-level, nonviolent drug law offenses stemming from addiction.
According to Justice Department
statistics, the United States holds a firm lead in maintaining the most
prisoners of any country in the world -- now at 2.2 million and rising, and
last year recorded the largest increase in the number of people in prisons
and jails since 2000. Criminal justice experts attribute the exploding U.S.
prison population to harsh sentencing laws and record numbers of drug law
offenders, many of whom have substance abuse problems.
Should we treat drug addiction
as a criminal matter or a medical problem? For most people, treatment is
much more effective than imprisonment for breaking their addictions, yet our
prisons are full of drug addicted individuals.
Nonviolent drug offenders should
be given an opportunity to receive treatment, not jail time, for their drug
use. This would be a more effective (not to mention much more affordable)
solution for the individual and the community.
Our 30-plus-year war on drugs
has stifled the open debate this country should be having about addiction
and how best to deal with it. It is time to treat addiction for what it is,
a medical problem, not a criminal one.Even for celebrities who rely on a
trend to bail them out and continue driving down that road to oblivion.
Anthony Papa
is a communications specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance (
www.drugpolicy.org), a New York group working to reduce the harms of
both drug misuse and drug prohibition. Please e-mail comments to
letters@detnews.com
Anthony Papa is author of "15 To Life" and a communications specialist for
the Drug Policy Alliance, which describes itself as an organization working
to reduce the harms of both drugs and drug prohib
June 30, 2007
Paris Hilton is free. Hooray! Sometimes it takes a traumatic experience to
awaken the hidden self. The 23 days she spent at the Century Regional
Detention Facility was far short of doing "hard time."
But it did give her a taste of life in the gulag. In that short time, I
gather she felt the reality of what it's like to lose your life as you know
it. Sitting in a small cell can be a most existential existence - I'm sure
Hilton saw the light.
There is something mystical about spending time in a cage. Since there is
nowhere to go, you pace the perimeter of your cell. Back and forth or around
in circles, all the while reliving the crime you committed that brought you
there.
When it gets really bad, you start reading the Bible and praying to the Lord
for forgiveness. For sure, Hilton has learned her lesson - or has she?
The problem she will now face as an ex-con is one that all ex-cons
experience, and one that can lead them down the road to recidivism. For the
most part, when you are released you want to forget the prison experience.
You do your best to block it out. In her case, I would bet that in a week
those feelings she has built up inside her brought on by her longing for her
freedom will disappear.
How do I know? I did a 12-year stretch at Sing Sing, and the first day I got
out I almost completely forgot all the feelings I had. I forgot about how my
existence was reduced to daily routines and calculations. I forgot about
measuring time in reference to the day at hand and the functions associated
with it - the head counts and bells that the prison used to maintain
security and order.
So, for sure, those 23 days will not mean much unless she is doing something
to remind her of her experience.
Hilton should follow up with her talk that she wants to find meaning in her
life. Because her jail time came from her arrest on a charge of driving with
a suspended license after a previous drunk-driving arrest, it would be
appropriate if Hilton now explored the subject of drugs and addiction. She
would have a great opportunity to become a noted spokeswoman for those less
fortunate. Think of how many lives she could save.
But let's not kid ourselves too much. Hilton comes from the part of the
privileged class that most of the time has justice applied in a kinder
fashion. She probably will go back to her home and drown herself in its lush
surroundings and surely forget all about the time she did.
I just hope Hilton keeps a memory of the redemption and forgiveness she
sought while sitting in her cell. Maybe then it will compel her to use her
fame for the good of society.
Thousands of
parole petitioners are ready to return to society as productive citizens of
New York but remain stuck in prison because of the politics of
incarceration. This unwritten policy of former Gov. George Pataki persists
in spite of Gov. Eliot Spitzer's attempt to change the nature of the
criminal justice system.
Offenders who
commit crimes such as murder are actually less likely to return to jail than
nonviolent offenders. Nevertheless, after coming to terms with their crimes,
they are still wasting away in New York's prisons. Time and again, the
parole board fails to weigh all of the relevant statutory factors together
with the prisoner's positive accomplishments and productive behavior while
incarcerated. Instead, the parole board focuses almost entirely on the
nature of the petitioner's crime.
A case in point is
the story of John Valverde, a 36-year-old Queens man who recently was denied
parole for his third consecutive time. He has already served 15 years of a
10- to 30-year sentence for killing a freelance photographer, Joel
Schoenfeld, a 47-year-old Manhattan man with a history of enticing young
female models to his studio and sexually assaulting them. In 1991,
Schoenfeld raped John's 19-year-old girlfriend. After unsuccessfully seeking
help from the police -- powerless to act without the brutalized and
traumatized victim coming forward -- John Valverde, then a 21-year-old
student, confronted Schoenfeld. The ensuing argument turned violent and John
shot and killed Schoenfeld.
The single bullet
fired that night changed not only John's life forever but also that of his
family. His mother, brother and sister have fought endlessly to free John
and themselves from the nightmare of his continuing ordeal behind bars. John
regrets the act he committed ending the life of an individual who took the
honor away from his former girlfriend many years ago. I know this because I
was with John during his time of remorsefulness at Sing Sing prison when I
was serving a 15-to-life sentence under the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
In 1995, we both
graduated from the New York Theological Seminary. I left John behind when I
was granted executive clemency by Pataki in 1997. I became an activist
against the Rockefeller Drug Laws making many trips to Albany to meet with
state legislators to try and convince them to change the laws that had taken
away 12 years of my life.
In 1998, I
co-founded the Mothers of the New York Disappeared, a leading advocacy group
consisting of family members of those incarcerated under the Rockefeller
Drug Laws. We pleaded our case for years before those laws were partially
reformed in 2004. I have dedicated my life to reforming a system that has
been plagued by injustice. Our prisons are full of human beings like John
who have made mistakes and are ready to return to society as law-abiding
citizens, but are stuck there because of politics.
In denying John's
freedom for the third time, the parole board had reasoned that despite his
accomplishments as a model prisoner, the violence displayed by his crime
outweighed everything else. Why are violent offenders, who seem to be ready
to return to society, being hit by the parole board on a continuous basis?
The answer is
simple. Politicians and parole officials are reluctant to grant parole to
violent prisoners because they are afraid of falling from grace in the eyes
of the public. In 2003 Brion Travis, the New York parole commissioner, was
reassigned to another department by Pataki after causing an uproar with the
release of a high-profile offender involved in the murder of two upstate
police officers.
On April 20, about
50 supporters came to Albany to rally on John Valverde's behalf. John's
brother Frank stood close to his parents while he explained to the crowd how
they were all there to ask the court to overturn the parole board's latest
denial through an appeal. If the judge who heard the appeal decides to
overturn the denial, John would quickly receive another parole hearing,
giving him another chance for freedom.
It is time for the
parole board to free prisoners like him. We cannot minimize the seriousness
of the crime he committed but neither can we minimize the tragedy of his
plight to regain his freedom. He is just one of many individuals who have
paid their debt to society for the crimes they have committed but kept in
prison because of the politics of incarceration.
Anthony Papa is a
communications specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance (http://www.drugpolicy.org
and author of the book "15 To Life."
On June 21, 2007 the
New York State legislative session is expected to end without any reform of
the Rockefeller Drug Laws. To most people it will not mean much. But to
Veronica Flournoy it will.
Veronica spent eight years in prison
for a first-time, nonviolent crime under New York's inhumane Rockefeller
Drug Laws. Tragically, at the age of 39, Veronica is now dying. A spot
discovered on her lung while in prison went untreated, which has led to
cancer that spread to her brain. She had a terrible drug addiction that
compelled her to deliver drugs for her boyfriend to fuel her habit. The
district attorney's office pressured her to provide evidence against her
boyfriend to help secure his conviction. Veronica was reluctant to cooperate
out of fear for the safety of her family. The system rewarded her refusal to
cooperate by throwing the book at her and handing her a sentence of
8-years-to-life.
She left behind her two-year-old
daughter, Candance, and, while serving her sentence, she gave birth to her
second daughter, Keyshana, who lived in the prison nursery until she was
13-months-old. Her elderly mother then cared for both children while
Veronica did hard time at the Bedford Correctional Facility for women in
upstate NY.
While in prison, Veronica overcame
her personal demons and received the treatment she needed to deal with her
drug addiction. Upon her release, Veronica reunited with her family and
became a central figure in the Rockefeller reform movement. She worked hard
to overturn the drug laws that had taken away her life as it had the many
others that shared the "scarlet letter of addiction." Although struggling
with her life as a single parent and having to bear the stigmatizing label
of "ex-addict" and "ex-felon," she became a true champion of those with
substance abuse problems who were sentenced to prison instead of treatment.
Her two daughters, now ages 10 and
12, along with her 84-year-old mother pray for a miracle. Their lives are in
shambles---unable to support themselves, watching the life ebb away from a
woman who was once so vibrant.
Just a few weeks ago, Veronica
appeared on camera for a moving public service announcement calling on Gov.
Spitzer to keep his word and deliver the reform
he promised while campaigning for his governorship. Spitzer, who
recently won his bid to become governor of New York, has sidestepped this
issue since ascending to office, in line with the legacy of his predecessor,
George Pataki, who danced around the issue of Rocky reform for more than
nine years.
Veronica's story reminds us of the
horrors of drug addiction. It destroys lives. But far worse is to condemn
those with drug addictions to imprisonment, while withholding the treatment
they so desperately need. Our prisons are filled with tens of thousands of
individuals with all kinds of drug addictions and psychological problems.
Addiction should not be treated as a criminal manner. Instead, we should
treat addiction as a medical problem. Gov. Elliot Spitzer who has been
silent on Rockefeller reform needs to address this issue now. No more
stalling. No dancing around the issue. It is the least he can do for a dying
woman, her heart-broken family, and the tens of thousands of others affected
by these laws.
El
Diario La Prensa
Rockefeller Drug Laws:
Still unfair, still inhumane
OPINION - 05/23/2007
BY ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
The New York State Assembly just passed Bill
6663, introduced by Assemblyman Jeffrion L. Aubry, which if enacted into law
would substantially reform the Rockefeller drug laws. This bill, which I
have also introduced in the Senate (S4352), would end the use of mandatory
minimum sentences, increase judicial discretion, expand drug treatment
options for non violent drug offenders, and allow certain inmates serving
long sentences to apply for re-sentencing. This common sense legislation
should become law. But the problem, once again, lies in the Republican
majority in the State Senate, which for decades have closed their eyes and
ears to the obvious judicial, social and financial problems of these laws.
Legislation enacted in 2004 and 2005, which
many opponents of real reform would tell you solved the problem, was
is the equivalent of putting a temporary bandage over an open wound, instead
of curing the injury once and for all.
I voted for this legislation, unwilling to
turn down the opportunity to reduce mandatory minimum sentences from 15 to 8
years, and allow some offenders to return home to their families early. But
these “reforms” applied to a small minority of those incarcerated under the
Rockefeller Drug Laws, doing nothing to rectify the sentences of thousands
of non-violent drug offenders still serving long mandatory minimums. They
also failed to give judges reasonable power to apply sentences based on
individual circumstantial evidence or decrease recidivism by supporting
these individuals as they re-enter their communities. The disproportionate
effects of these laws on African Americans and Latinos make the need for
their reform even more urgent. Of the 15,500 people in prison, 92 percent
are people of color, while studies have shown that whites comprise 72
percent of illegal drug users in the nation.
For years, the Democratic Conference of the
State Senate has actively pursued a means to correct the damage of the
Rockefeller Drug Laws and put in place laws that will apply proportional
punishment to drug related crimes on an individual basis. I am calling on
our Republican colleagues to put partisanship aside and join us in doing the
right thing for all New Yorkers by enacting real reform of these shameful
laws.
Because they are focused on drug possession,
major drug traffickers can easily escape the hardship of the laws by using
other people as “mules” to carry their contraband. The ineffective laws also
target drug-addicts possessing small amounts of illegal substances.
In addition to being inhumane, the laws are
also disproportionately expensive in comparison with community and
professional alternatives, costing the state more than $500 million a year.
Credible cost analysis has estimated that even the most expensive non prison
alternative treatment will cost less than half that amount.
We can argue that back in 1973 governor
Nelson Rockefeller was well intentioned when proposing harsh penalties to
combat the illegal drug contraband, and its social consequences. But how can
we justify that decades later, despite studies and persuasive economic
arguments to the contrary? We can not. Let’s put an end to this draconian
punishment, let’s repeal the Rockefeller drug laws once and for all.
State
Senator Eric T. Schneiderman represents New York State Senate District 31st,
that covers parts of Manhattan and the Bronx.
Flash! May
23, 2007New Rockefeller Drug Law Song on UTube
“My name is Veronica and I spent eight years in prison for a nonviolent
crime under New York’s harsh Rockefeller Drug Laws. I spent eight years away
from my family, and my daughters were left in the care of my elderly mother.
While I was in prison, my lung cancer was undiagnosed. Now the doctors say I
have six months to live.
There are thousands of people just like me in prison. Gov. Spitzer came
into office saying Day One, everything changes. Gov. Spitzer, it’s time for
real reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws.”
Flash! May 20th 2007 Prison Politics of New York State!
Set free prison politics in New York state
Albany Times Union, NY - May
20, 2007
I became an activist against the Rockefeller Drug Laws
making many trips to Albany to meet with state legislators to try and convince
them to change the ...
__________________________
Syracuse Post-Standard
May 20, 2007 Sunday
FINAL EDITION
UNFINISHED BUSINESS;
THERE'S STILL WORK TO DO IN REFORMING HARSH ROCKEFELLER DRUG LAWS
SECTION: OPINION; Pg. E2
LENGTH: 411 words
The 34th anniversary of the Rockefeller drug laws passed this month
without fanfare. Yet the more than 15,000 mostly African-American and Hispanic
offenders incarcerated under some of the harshest drug laws in the land would
surely have liked someone to notice. Too many non-violent drug offenders remain
imprisoned under laws that in some cases require stiffer penalties for
possessing small amounts of cocaine than for committing rape or manslaughter.
And although almost every political leader, past and present (including
those who drafted the lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key statutes in 1973),
believes the laws are archaic, the momentum for change seems to have slowed
considerably. Three years ago, the Drop the Rock campaign by celebrities such as
hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons, and other efforts from lawmakers and advocacy
groups like the Drug Policy Alliance, brought some changes, but they didn't go
far enough. Under the reforms, which were further amended in 2005, some drug
offenders with Class I and II felonies could apply for resentencing, which could
make them eligible for release. Some sentence times were shortened. But many
non-violent drug offenders did not benefit from the changes, and Gov. Pataki and
legislative leaders agreed that the reforms were only a first step.The Assembly
seems motivated to continue the work. Last month, it passed more reforms,
including the much-needed provision that gives judges discretion in sentencing,
which would allow them to send non-violent offenders to drug treatment programs,
where many belong. The Assembly plan also lengthens sentences for drug kingpins.
But the Senate, which had resisted drug law changes for so long, has not
moved on the issue. Some critics have suggested the Senate doesn't want to
change the laws because Upstate communities would lose some of their prison
populations, which are included in Census counts. Communities with lower Census
counts could face redistricting. It is doubtful that senators are that callous
or calculating. But whatevertheir reasons, they have not been pushing the
reforms.
The Senate and Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who has backed drug law reform, need to
re-engage in this effort. It would also be nice to hear Attorney General Andrew
Cuomo's voice on this issue; he has a history of fighting for the cause. Next
year, there should be no 35th anniversary commemoration of drug laws that have
punished some non-violent offenders more than child rapists and killers.
Flash!! May 11, 2007
Looking to repeat the Russell Simmons Hip Hop Assault Against the
Rockefeller Drug Laws - Jim Jones new record and video Lockdown USA hits hard
and send a powerful message
On Tuesday, New York marked an ugly anniversary -- 34 years since the state's
draconian Rockefeller drug laws were enacted. Now, three years after the
legislature enacted the first, timid reforms of those harsh drug laws and one
month after the State Assembly voted to broaden them, drug reform activists are
seeking to heighten the pressure on Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D), Lt. Gov. David
Paterson (D), Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D), and the Republican-led state
Senate to act.
Prisoners sentenced under mandatory minimum Rockefeller drug laws now number
more than 13,000, and an astonishing 91% of them are black or brown. The reforms
enacted in 2004 have resulted in the release of only 300, leaving thousands of
prisoners serving mid-level mandatory minimum sentences still in purgatory.
Spitzer, Paterson, and
Cuomo campaigned on Rockefeller law reform, but since they took office the
silence has been deafening. In 2003, the hip-hop community, led by empresario
Russell Simmons, put tens of thousands people on the street to rally for reform.
Now, once again, the hip-hop community is calling out the politicians.
Working with
Real Reform New York, a coalition coordinated by the
Drug Policy Alliance, hip-hop superstar Jim Jones Tuesday released a new rap
single, "Lockdown,
USA," a powerful call to reform the Rockefeller laws which has so far run on
dozens of radio stations around the country.
A Harlem native, Jones
has seen the impact of the Rockefeller drug laws firsthand. Conversely, the
politicians in Albany have seen the impact of a mobilized hip-hop nation first
hand, too, and reformers report that the prospect of a new call to arms from the
hip-hop community has them nervous.
"We're kicking up the
pressure now, trying to revive the Russell Simmons coalition approach to Albany,
and I'm hearing that they're starting to sweat," said Anthony Papa, a
former Rockefeller law prisoner turned author and painter who now works to
undo those laws. "They're getting flashbacks of 100,000 people on the street
[for the 2003 Russell Simmons
Countdown to Fairness], and it's good if that makes them nervous," Papa told
the Chronicle.
He isn't just
speculating. After publishing an op-ed in the widely-read Huffington Post blog
last weekend, titled "Spitzer,
Cuomo and Paterson: Where Did You Go?," Papa received a personal call from
Paterson's office. "Not too happy," Papa characterized their feelings about it
in an e-mail to DRCNet yesterday. And word is that the chatter in Albany about
it all is far more extensive than that.
"These guys campaigned on
Rockefeller law reform, and now Spitzer has been in office for more than 100
days, and it is nowhere in sight," Papa complained. "Hip-hop is now calling you
out, Spitzer!"
It's time for change,
said one prisoner's mother. "Small changes to the Rockefeller Drug Laws were
clearly not enough. My son Ashley is a prime example of this, because he is
serving a 7- to 21-year sentence for a first-time, nonviolent offense," said
Cheri O'Donoghue, an advocate for Real Reform New York. "These inhumane, racist
laws have been around for nearly 34 years. Enough is enough."
New York's Drug Law
Reform Act of 2004 (DLRA) lowered some drug sentences but it fell far short of
allowing most people serving under the more punitive sentences to apply for
shorter terms, and it did nothing to increase the power of judges to place
addicts into treatment programs. While advocates and family members are
encouraged by these modest reforms, it is clear that the recent reforms have had
a negligible impact on the majority of people behind bars. Most people behind
bars on Rockefeller charges are charged with nonviolent lower-level or class-B
felonies.
"Given the extraordinary
racism associated with these laws, it's unbelievable they've been around for 34
years," said Gabriel Sayegh, project director at Drug Policy Alliance. "We hope
that this powerful song will inspire the thousands who attended the 2003
Lockdown, USA rally -- and all outraged New Yorkers -- to pick up the phone and
step into the streets to put heat on Governor Spitzer and State Senator Joe
Bruno -- to make them keep their word and reform these inhumane laws."
But even if the
Democratic administration starts moving on real reform, a huge political
obstacle remains in the Republican-dominated Senate, with its strongholds in the
prison country of upstate New York. Seven upstate Senate districts held by
Republicans depend on prisoner numbers to reach their required population size
and would have to be redrawn if large numbers of prisoners were released or the
US Census Bureau counted them as residents of their home towns.
Prisons are also a growth
industry in Republican-dominated upstate, which has seen dozens of new prisons
in the past two decades. It is no surprise that two of the most vocal reform
opponents, Sens. Dale Volker (R) of suburban Buffalo and Michael Nozzolio (R) of
Finger Lakes have 17% of the state's prison population in their districts.
Spitzer ran on his record
as a crusader against waste and corruption. Now, he has the opportunity to undo
the Rockefeller drug laws. But will he, or will he bow to political pressure
from powerful special interests who benefit directly from the mass incarceration
of their nonviolent fellow citizens? The reform community is now turning up the
heat to help him do the right thing.
May 8 marked the 34th anniversary of New York's Rockefeller Drug Laws.
On this day Jim Jones the hip hop superstar released his new rap single
and video titled "Lockdown, USA," a powerful song calling for real
reform of the laws. The song is a single from the forthcoming
documentary about the Rockefeller Drug Laws called Lockdown , USA. The
new song and video was released on the website of the Drug Policy
Alliance
http://www.drugpolicy.org/statebystate/newyork/lockdownusa/ as
part of the Real Reform New York Coalition's continuing struggle to win
real reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. Real Reform New York is made
up of dozens of organizations representing thousands of community
members, activists, advocates, policy and treatment experts, survivors,
their friends and families that have joined to reform these laws.
Despite a few recent reforms, which in theory would fix the draconian
nature of these laws, little has been done and the campaign for
meaningful reform continues. In fact, out of the current 14,000
Rockefeller prisoners, fewer than 300 have been freed under the
revisions to date. It is hoped that this call from the Hip Hop world
ignites legislative action as it did in 2003 when Russell Simons called
on Governor Pataki to reform the Rockefeller Drug Laws. Over 50,000
people lined the streets of NYC with the "Countdown to Fairness"
coalition requesting the governor to reform the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
In recent elections, a number of officials who went on record in support
of real Rockefeller reform were voted into office. Governor Elliot
Spitzer, for one, along with Lt. Governor David Paterson and Attorney
General Cuomo all have spoken out for reform in the past. But now they
are surprisingly silent on the issue.
In 2004, I wrote a memoir of my experiences serving a 15-to-life
sentence under these harsh laws. Andrew Cuomo, before he became our
state's attorney general, threw a book release party for me at the
Whitney Museum of American Art. Attending the event were prominent
individuals like Senator David Paterson, along with many other
influential guests.
Cuomo and Paterson spoke bravely about changing these draconian laws.
Spitzer, the then-attorney general of New York, did not attend but wrote
a letter saying that my story was a "very personal and tragic story,
like those of so many other nonviolent offenders languishing in our
prisons on relatively minor drug offenses," and that it "illustrates the
impact that our Rockefeller Drug Laws have had on a generation of New
Yorkers. I applaud Mr. Papa's courage in speaking out and sharing his
ordeal with the world." It was a moving event that generated a vision of
changing the Rockefeller Drug Laws in a positive way.
I find it strange that the people who had supported change in the past
have now become so silent on the issue. My question is why do
politicians who use political platforms to generate votes suddenly
forget their past when elected to higher office?
Governor Elliot Spitzer, does appear interested in correcting the
criminal justice sector, as evidenced by his success in removing
exorbitant charges on collect calls made by prisoners to their families,
and his recent attempt to downsize half-empty prisons. But his laudable
efforts have not cued in on the Rockefeller reform. Attorney General
Andrew Cuomo who has used this issue in the past to revive his political
career has not uttered a word about it. And Lt. Governor David Paterson
who represented a highly affected Harlem district as senator has steered
away from the issue. It's time for Spitzer, Paterson and Cuomo to join
the NYS Assembly and step up to the plate. They should remember their
past intentions, especially when it affects the people who voted them
into office.
--Anthony Papa is the author of 15 Years to Life: How I Painted My Way
to Freedom and Communications Specialist for Drug Policy Alliance. He
can be reached at: anthonypapa123@yahoo.com. Papa's artwork can be
viewed at:
15yearstolife.com.
flash: MAY 8TH : THE 34TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
ROCKEFELLER DRUG LAWS!
May
8 marks the 34th anniversary of New York's Rockefeller Drug Laws. Despite a few
recent reforms, which in theory would fix the draconian nature of these laws,
little has been done and the campaign for meaningful reform continues. In fact,
out of the current 13,000 Rockefeller prisoners, fewer than 300 have been freed
under the revisions to date.
In recent elections, a number of officials who went on record in support of real
Rockefeller reform were voted into office. Governor Elliot Spitzer, for one,
along with Lt. Governor David Paterson and Attorney General Cuomo all have
spoken out for reform in the past. But now they are surprisingly silent on the
issue.
In 2004, I wrote a memoir of my experiences serving a 15-to-life sentence under
these harsh laws. Andrew Cuomo, before he became our state's attorney general,
threw a book release party for me at the Whitney Museum of American Art.
Attending the event were prominent individuals like Senator David Paterson,
along with many other influential guests.
Cuomo and Paterson spoke bravely about changing these draconian laws. Spitzer,
the then-attorney general of New York, did not attend but wrote a letter saying
that my story was a "very personal and tragic story, like those of so many other
nonviolent offenders languishing in our prisons on relatively minor drug
offenses," and that it "illustrates the impact that our Rockefeller Drug Laws
have had on a generation of New Yorkers. I applaud Mr. Papa's courage in
speaking out and sharing his ordeal with the world." It was a moving event that
generated a vision of changing the Rockefeller Drug Laws in a positive way.
I find it strange that the people who had supported change in the past have now
become so silent on the issue. My question is why do politicians who use
political platforms to generate votes suddenly forget their past when elected to
higher office?
Governor Elliot Spitzer, does appear interested in correcting the criminal
justice sector, as evidenced by his success in removing exorbitant charges on
collect calls made by prisoners to their families, and his recent attempt to
downsize half-empty prisons. But his laudable efforts have not cued in on the
Rockefeller reform. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo who has used this issue in the
past to revive his political career has not uttered a word about it. And Lt.
Governor David Patterson who represented a highly affected Harlem district as
senator has steered away from the issue.
Last week the New York State Assembly passed a bill for further reform of the
Rockefeller Drug laws. Cheri O'Donoghue joined them at a press conference and
talked about her son Ashley who is serving a 7 to 21 sentence for a first time
non-violent drug offense. This mother grieved for the son she had lost to laws
that had taken away her relationship with him. She asked why the Rockefeller
Drug Laws had now not been a priority with so many politicians that had
benefited from them in the past. No one could answer her question. It's time for
Spitzer, Patterson and Cuomo to join the NYS Assembly and step up to the plate.
They should remember their past intentions, especially when it affects the
people who voted them into office.
By
GABRIEL SAYEGH First
published: Thursday, April 26, 2007
Last
week, the state Assembly passed important legislation to reform the
draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws. The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman
Jeffrion Aubry, D-Queens, increases drug treatment alternatives to
incarceration, expands judicial discretion to restore fairness in our
courts and, critically, allows for people currently serving harsh prison
terms for low-level drug offenses to seek much-needed relief.
The Assembly should be commended for
passing smart reforms. But where are the governor and the state Senate
on drug law reform?
While running for governor, Eliot
Spitzer campaigned on a promise: "Day One, Everything Changes." Spitzer
made campaign statements in support of real reform of the laws. Lt. Gov.
David Paterson was a long-time reform champion while Senate minority
leader. Families and advocates working for repeal of the failed
Rockefeller Drug Laws were cautiously optimistic about Spitzer's
promise. It seemed entirely possible that on Day One, the Rockefeller
laws, after nearly 34 long, terrible years, might finally be repealed.
But in the first hundred days of the new
administration, drug law reform went missing in action. Spitzer took on
a variety of important issues, but the Rockefeller Drug Laws didn't even
make his priority list for the end of the legislative session.
Why is it so hard to win real reform,
when everyone knows these laws are racist, ineffective, wasteful and
unjust? So asks longtime advocate Cheri O'Donoghue, whose son, Ashley,
is serving seven to 21 years for a first-time, nonviolent drug offense.
Ashley is one of more than 14,000 people incarcerated under these harsh
laws.
The answer to Cheri's question is
downright sinister, but it's no secret. The reason the Rockefeller Drug
Laws haven't been done away with is because of a despicable trinity of
racism, cash cows and the U.S. census, not to mention the people who
rely on this trinity for their political survival. From 1817 to 1981,
New York built 33 prisons. But from 1982 to 2000, New York built 38 more
prisons -- all of them upstate. The unprecedented prison boom was
largely an economic development plan meant to ameliorate the job loss
upstate. Rural, white communities were clamoring to build and staff
prisons. The Rockefeller Drug Laws delivered the bodies with harsh
mandatory-minimum sentences for low-level drug offenses.
The RAND Corp. and other think tanks
have shown that drug use and abuse is roughly equal across all racial
groups. But the Rockefeller Drug Laws always have been marked by severe
racial bias. Today, 91 percent of the people incarcerated under these
laws are black and Latino. It's a scenario we'd expect to find in an
apartheid state, not a democracy.
Once elected, Spitzer proposed the
possibility of closing half-empty prisons in upstate New York, saving
millions of dollars. Many groups applauded Spitzer, because New York's
prison population has dropped in recent years and its archaic prison
industrial complex needs an overhaul. The leading voices against
studying closing prisons, though, were politically very powerful. The
correction officers union and upstate politicians have parlayed the
politics of imprisonment into lucrative businesses and political
careers. The prospects for reform have at least dimmed, if they haven't
died altogether.
The plot thickens,
though. More than 76 percent of the state's prison
inmates come from New York City. The U.S. Census
Bureau counts them as residents of the upstate
prisons in which they're incarcerated, not as
residents of the communities from which they came.
Why does this
matter? According to the Prison Policy Initiative,
if prisoners were not counted as "residents," seven
upstate Senate districts would be 5 percent short of
their required population size, and thus have to be
redrawn. This means that senators in those districts
-- all of them Republicans -- would lose their
seats, causing Republicans to lose their slim Senate
majority. Unsurprisingly, Senate Republicans remain
staunch opponents of repealing the Rockefeller Drug
Laws.
Two vocal reform
opponents -- Sen. Dale Volker of suburban Buffalo
and Sen. Michael Nozzolio of the Finger Lakes --
have more than 17 percent of the state's prisoners
in their districts. Is it any wonder why they oppose
reform?
Spitzer was elected
on his record as a crusader against waste and
corruption, no matter what powerful interests stood
in his way. Advocates for drug law reform hoped the
new governor would stand up to the corruption and
racism blocking real reform of the Rockefeller Drug
Laws. He now has that chance, with the legislation
passed by the Assembly and sent to the Senate. But
the Senate, under Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, will
block those reforms unless the governor gets more
directly involved.
For the sake of
justice, and families like the O'Donoghues, let's
demand that the governor makes a priority of drug
law reform.
Because if nothing
changes, nothing changes.
Gabriel Sayegh is a
project director at the Drug Policy Alliance in New
York City, http://www.drugpolicy.org.
Regarding "Spitzer ends charge on inmate collect calls" [News, April
15]: Gov. Eliot Spitzer did the right thing in ending the major ripoff
of families of those incarcerated. They were forced to pay enormous
amounts of money to telephone companies to keep them in touch with their
imprisoned loved ones.
My mother used most of her Social Security checks to pay for the collect
calls I made to her while serving a 15-to-life sentence under the
Rockefeller drug laws.
Many families of the imprisoned in New York State had to make sacrifices
to keep their families together through the use of phone calls.
This was nothing short of a moral crime.
I just want to point out that Spitzer, who had a steamroller history of
going after white-collar crimes as attorney general, did nothing about
the telephone charges when he held that position.
Maybe this was because he was bound by law to defend the actions of the
Department of Corrections.
Whatever the case may be, he now shows commitment as governor to
correcting the wrongs in the criminal justice sector. Let's hope he can
now help reform the Rockefeller drug laws.
Anthony Papa
Editor's note: The writer is communications specialist for the Drug
Policy Alliance.
Manhattan
Flash! April 19, 2007:
Assembly Drops New Rockefeller Drug Law Bill
Advocates say Rockefeller drug laws
remain too harsh
By Cara Matthews
Albany Bureau
ALBANY — Lawmakers and family members of people imprisoned on
non-violent drug charges urged legislators Wednesday to further
roll-back sentencing under the state's Rockefeller-era drug laws, widely
considered to be among the nation's harshest.
Changes to the laws in 2004 and amendments last year called for
eliminating parole and reducing overall sentences of non-violent drug
offenders. Some prisoners who had committed Class A felonies, the most
serious level, could apply for reduced sentences. But lawmakers did not
make changes for Class B and other lower-level felonies, said Sen. Eric
Schneiderman, D-Manhattan. It expanded eligibility for prison-based drug
treatment, among other changes.
Schneiderman and other
lawmakers are sponsoring legislation to expand treatment programs and
allow prisoners convicted of Class B felonies for non-violent drug
offenses to apply for reduced sentences. It would increase sentences for
violent drug dealers and “kingpins.”
The legislation would
“really change the culture around drug addiction in our state to focus
more on treatment,” Schneiderman said. It would prevent the “brutal
breakup of families and long-term harm done by incarcerating people for
long periods of time whose real problem is drug addiction,” he added.
Sentencing reforms enacted in 2004 have resulted in the release of
only 177 people, the senator said. On average, they were released 43
months before their previously calculated earliest release date.
The bill would make the following other changes:
* Increase judges' discretion and allow some people convicted of
first- and second-time drug offenses to receive treatment and probation
instead of prison terms.
* Set up drug courts in every county. Drug courts make special
efforts to get offenders in treatment programs.
* Raise the weight thresholds for certain drug offenses so that the
possible sentence times are reduced.
* Create or expand “second chance” programs for low-level drug
defendants, such as the Court Approved Drug Abuse Treatment program, in
which offenders' cases can be dismissed or reduced to misdemeanors upon
successful completion of treatment.
The legislation on Wednesday passed the Assembly, where it is
sponsored by Jeffrion Aubry, D-Queens. Senate Republicans have resisted
efforts to further ease the Rockefeller-era drug laws, and district
attorneys have strongly opposed such measures.
Cheri O'Donoghue of New York City, said her son, Ashley, was arrested
in a sting operation set up by two Hamilton College students who were
cooperating with police after they were caught selling drugs on campus.
They asked to buy enough cocaine from him to make the charges an A
felony.
Ashley, now 24, pleaded the case down to a Class B felony and
received a sentence of seven to 21 years, said Cheri O'Donoghue, whose
family also has a home in Pleasant Valley, Dutchess County. He has been
in prison nearly four years.
People need to take responsibility for their actions, she said, but
her son's punishment does not fit the crime.
“When you look at this, you have to ask yourself, ‘Does this make
sense?' and I don't see how anyone could come away from this and say it
makes sense,” she said. “We all make mistakes and I think that Ashley
should have at least been given a second chance. These other two kids
were given a second chance.”
The Drug Policy Alliance estimates that when fully implemented, the
state would save about $123 million a year due to fewer prison
admissions and reductions in drug-related crime.
According to the Real Reform New York Coalition, less than 30 percent
of 1,000 prisoners serving time on Class A-1 and A-2 drug felonies were
released after requesting re-sentencing. The re-sentencing process is
much slower than expected, the group said.
Originally published April 19, 2007
April 19, 2007
A Nightmare Behind Bars
John Valverde's Fight for
Freedom
By ANTHONY PAPA
Former
Governor George Pataki's legacy of not freeing rehabilitated violent offenders
is alive and well in New York State. Today thousands of parole petitioners are
ready to return to society as productive citizens but remain stuck in prison
because of the politics of incarceration.
This unwritten policy
persists in spite of newly installed Governor Elliot Spitzer's attempt to
correct the criminal justice sector, as evidenced by his recent calls to remove
the exorbitant charges on collect calls
Statistically it is a
not-so-well-known fact that offenders who commit crimes such as murder are
actually less likely to return to jail than nonviolent offenders. Nevertheless,
after completing their sentences and coming to terms with their crimes, they are
still wasting away in New York State gulags. Time and again the parole board
fails to weigh all of the relevant statutory factors together with the
prisoner's positive accomplishments and productive behavior while incarcerated.
Instead, the parole board focuses almost entirely on the nature of the
petitioner's crime.
A case in point is the
story of John Valverde, a 36-year-old Queens man who recently was denied parole
for his third consecutive time. He has already served 15 years of a 10- to
30-year sentence for ending the life of a freelance photographer, Joel
Schoenfeld, a 47-year-old West Village photographer with a history of enticing
young female models to his studio and sexually assaulting them. In 1991,
Schoenfeld raped his 19-year-old model girlfriend. After unsuccessfully seeking
help from the police--powerless to act without the brutalized and traumatized
victim coming forward--John Valverde, then a 21-year-old student, confronted
Schoenfeld. The ensuing argument turned violent and John shot and killed
Schoenfeld. The single bullet fired that night changed not only John's life
forever but also that of his family. His mother, brother and sister have fought
endlessly to free John and themselves from the nightmare of his continuing
ordeal behind bars.
John regrets the act he
committed ending the life of an individual who took the honor away his former
girlfriend many years ago. I know this because I was with John during his time
of remorsefulness at Sing Sing prison when I was serving a 15-to-life sentence
under the Rockefeller Drug Laws. In 1995, we both graduated from the New York
Theological Seminary. Despite the negative environment that surrounded him, John
managed to transcend the prison experience by finding purpose in his life
through helping others. He taught religion, volunteered as a tutor for men who
could not read, and worked with AIDS patients.
The hard time John served
in a maximum security prison transformed him from the 21-year-old boy who had
made the biggest mistake of his life into a man who now understands the horror
of his crime. Apparently all inconsequential in the view of the parole board,
which offered the following reasoning in John's case: "The violence displayed in
this crime outweighs everything else."
Why are violent offenders,
who seem to be ready to return to society, being hit by the parole board on a
continuous basis? The answer is simple. Politicians and parole officials are
afraid of granting parole to violent prisoners out of fear of falling from grace
in the eyes of the public. Recently, the New York Parole Commissioner was
demoted from his position by Governor Pataki after causing and uproar with the
release a high-profile offender involved in the murder of two upstate police
officers.
If we look at the history
of why violent offenders are routinely denied parole we can see how it could
have evolved out of the cash incentives for new prison construction given by the
federal government to states that ended parole for violent offenders in 1994
under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. This law was devised to
give states fiscal incentives to build prisons if they in turn enacted laws that
result in violent offenders serving 85% of their sentences. Grants were made
available for states to build more prisons coupled with an effective end to
parole. From 1996 to 2000, New York State received around $200 million under
this Act.
On April 20, family and
friends of John Valverde will gather in front of the Albany Supreme Court in New
York to rally on John's behalf, and in support of overturning the parole board's
latest denial. We are calling on Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who represents
the parole board, to look into the totality of facts in this case so John and
his family may receive proper judicial relief.
It is time for the parole
board to free model prisoners like John Valverde. We cannot minimize the
seriousness of the crime he committed but neither can we minimize the tragedy of
his plight to regain his freedom. He is just one of many individuals who have
paid their debt to society for the crimes they committed but kept in prison
because of the "Politics of Incarceration."
Re "Is This the Answer to Drug Use?" ( March 25 ):
Students are now on the front lines of the war on drugs. Whether it be
random, suspicionless student drug testing, or having police dogs
sniffing around school lockers for drugs, students are now feeling the
heavy-handedness of the government's efforts to keep them "drug-free."
The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy is trying to
persuade local educators across the country to apply random,
suspicionless drug tests by conducting regional summits. This policy is
unsupported by available science and opposed by leading experts in
adolescent health.
Instead, educators should implement alternatives to drug testing that
emphasize education and discussion that will build trust between
students and adults. Forcing students to urinate in a cup is not the
way to keep them drug-free.
Anthony Papa
New York
The writer is communications specialist, Drug Policy Alliance.
On
March 20, student free speech joined the panoply of endangered fundamental
rights ready to be stripped away from us due to the tragedy of the drug war.
Kenneth Starr, former solicitor general, who reached broad fame by highlighting
a presidential sex scandal in the Clinton years, stood before the land's highest
court to argue the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case.
It all started innocently enough when 18-year-old Joe Frederick sought his "15
minutes of fame" by pulling a harmless prank. In 2002, in front of his high
school, during a procession of the Olympic torch relay brigade, Joe unrolled a
14-foot banner bearing the words "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Soon after the cameras
caught the act, his high school principal suspended him for ten days for
displaying the banner, in apparent violation of school policy limiting speech
that promotes illegal drug use. Frederick soon brought a lawsuit against his
school principal in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in his favor,
finding that the principal had violated Frederick's First Amendment rights.
The case subsequently reached the Supreme Court where Starr argued on behalf of
the former principal and the school. Starr developed a legal strategy to defend
the school's position that the language in question on the banner clearly went
against the school's anti-drug mission. He even had former Drug Czar Barry
McCaffrey stand beside him on the Supreme Court steps for a photo op.
Frederick's lawyer countered Starr's argument explaining that the case was
really all about free speech, and not a case about drugs or drug use. Win or
lose, Starr used this worldwide platform to advocate the government's
zero-tolerance policy views on drugs.
Students are now on the front lines of the war on drugs. Whether it be random,
suspicionless student drug testing, or having police dogs sniffing around school
lockers for drugs, students are now feeling the heavy-handedness of the
government's overzealous efforts to keep them "drug-free." Get busted smoking a
joint and lose federal funding for education. Talk about bong hits and face
suspension. Where will it end?
In the government's attempt to win the drug war, it has little regard for our
precious given rights as outlined in the Constitution. Drug users and people
wrestling with addiction everywhere are routinely demonized by the moral
majority. Chip by chip or, in this case, bong hit by bong hit, our fundamental
rights are going up in smoke. Americans across the land must be made better
aware of this travesty.
Everyone who is concerned about free speech should be concerned with the outcome
of this case. If the government can silence us about the drug war today, they
can silence us on Iraq tomorrow and global warming the day after that.
President Bush is
presently conducting a five country tour of Latin America. One of the main
points on his agenda is trying to court its leaders into following the United
States in their traditional drug prohibition strategies. In Bogotá, Colombia, he
was greeted by protestors who were not impressed with the $700 million in aid to
combat drug trafficking through Plan Colombia.
Despite Bush's monetary incentives, elected officials up and down the Americas
are looking at the violence in the streets and are beginning to question the
failed U.S. drug prohibition model. The latest voice to join the choir was Rio
de Janeiro's governor, Sergio Cabral, who on February 23 called for legalizing
drugs as a strategy to fight the ongoing drug-related gang violence that is
devastating his state. He expressed hopes that this new approach would reduce
the violent crime caused primarily by drug prohibition and the illicit markets
it spawns.
Rio de Janeiro has one of the highest murder rates in Latin America, fueled by
outbreaks of violence among different gangs, and between gangs and the police in
the slums of Brazil's favelas, where urban drug lords rule. Several months ago,
one of the governor's first acts was to ask the federal government to send a
special security force to Rio following the eruption of gang violence that
caused both civilian and police deaths.
"The governor is merely saying out loud what so many more think but fear to
say," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Rio
today is like Chicago under Al Capone – times ten. Reforming drug prohibition
won't be as quick and easy as repealing alcohol Prohibition was, but there's no
hope for breaking the drug-crime nexus unless many more elected officials heed
Governor Cabral's call."
Not too long ago, a world away, a similar call was made in upstate New York by
Erie County Executive Joel Giambra, fed up by the violence associated with the
illegal drug trade. He went on to say his city streets had turned into war
zones. Soon after, law enforcement officials condemned him. The same thing
happened to Mexico's president, Vicente Fox, when he called for legalization of
small amounts of some types of drugs. Prohibitionists went into overdrive to
stop him and he withdrew his idea soon after.
The idea to change the failed policies of drug prohibition has been met with
powerful resistance despite the devastation it inevitably brings to
societies. It is time to step out of the darkness and into the light to seek a
new strategy in our failed attempt of drug prohibition. We should welcome
innovative leaders with new ideas that will make our world safer to live in,
instead of condemning them.
--Anthony Papa is a communications specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance, a
New York-based organization working to reform drug policies, and author of
15 to Life.
We need a smart political leader like Gov. Eliot Spitzer to correct the
waste of scarce tax dollars spent on maintaining half-empty
institutions.
These prisons have become cash cows for the correction officers' union
and political leaders in rural upstate communities that house these
facilities.
Governor Spitzer is clearly looking at the economic waste generated by
the archaic prison-industrial complex. His efforts to substitute a
smarter economic approach should be applauded and given time to bear
fruit.
Governor Spitzer's policy will lead to a better functioning criminal
justice system that will be more cost-efficient for the people of New
York.
Anthony Papa
The writer is a communications specialist for the Drug Policy Alliance.
Flash!
January 2, 2007
Spitzer Should Make
Rockefeller Drug Law Reform #1 Priority
Albany
Times-Union
Put Drug Laws on Day One Docket
By GABRIEL SAYEGH
New Yorkers are waiting to see whether Gov. Eliot Spitzer's
campaign slogan -- "Day One, Everything Changes"-- is
genuine, or just a slogan. There are a number of issues
that warrant the attention of the new administration, and
reforming the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws should be a
priority.
The Rockefeller Drug Laws, passed in 1973, mandate harsh
mandatory minimum prison terms for simple, low-level drug
offenses. Under these laws, people convicted of first-time
drug offenses receive 8 to 20 years in prison. While the
state spends millions of taxpayer dollars every year
imprisoning drug offenders, spending on community-based drug
treatment is pitifully low. Indeed, treatment options for
people with drug problems are too limited, especially for
low-income people. There are more than 14,000 people in New
York prisons under the Rockefeller Drug Laws. Nationwide,
over 500,000 people are incarcerated on drug offenses, more
than any other industrialized nation (and more than the
European Union, with 100 million more residents,
incarcerates for all offenses combined).
But perhaps the most despicable aspect of the Rockefeller
Drug Laws is the institutional racism associated with their
application. More than 90 percent of the people
incarcerated under the Rockefeller Drug Laws are black and
Latino, even though whites use and sell illegal drugs at
approximately equal rates. There is no excuse for this
disparity. With New York City reeling from yet another
police shooting of an unarmed black man, questions of
institutional racism in policing practices are fresh on the
minds of New Yorkers. Spitzer should take note: Recent
polls show that nearly 80 percent of New Yorkers believe
the Rockefeller Drug Laws should be repealed. These
policies, ineffective and racist, waste thousands lives and
millions of dollars each year. The laws were moderately
reformed two years ago, but as Senate Majority Leader Joe
Bruno said of the 2004 reforms, "More needs to be done."
Advocates, newspaper editorial boards, and leaders across
the political spectrum agreed, as did Lt. Gov. David
Paterson, a longtime champion of reform.
Yet real reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws remains
unfinished. Spitzer can complete drug law reform by doing
five things:
1. Restore judicial discretion. Under mandatory minimum
sentencing practices, judges have no discretion in
sentencing. For example, whether the offense is a person's
first, or they are simply a mule, is irrelevant.
Organizations such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops, the American Bar Association, and Supreme Court
Justice Anthony Kennedy have all called for an end to
mandatory minimums because they constitute unfair practices.
2. Fund treatment. A study by the RAND Corporation found
that treatment is 15 times more effective -- and far
cheaper -- than incarceration in reducing drug abuse and
related crime. In California, voters passed Prop. 36 in
2000, diverting people arrested for first- and second- time
simple drug possession into community-based treatment, not
prison. A recent UCLA study found that Prop. 36 is highly
successful. Some 5,000 people a year receive treatment
instead of prison, saving state taxpayers $1.3 billion.
3 Enact sentencing reform. The Rockefeller Drug Laws are
draconian because the sentences are so inhumane. We need
further sentencing reform, including reform of the Second
Felony Offender Act, and an increased use of alternatives
to incarceration. Eight to 20 years for a first-time,
nonviolent offense is what we'd expect from a dictatorship,
not a democracy.
4. Apply retroactivity. Sentencing reforms should apply
retroactively to the more than 14,000 people currently
incarcerated because of these laws.
5. Focus on re-entry. Tie these reforms together with a
comprehensive re-entry plan, providing wrap-around services
such as drug treatment and job training for people
returning to our communities from prison. Help them become
productive, taxpaying citizens instead of being a prison
number.
By doing all this, Spitzer can ensure that people with
addictions receive treatment instead of a jail cell; he can
save taxpayer dollars while improving public safety; and he
can help end the institutional racism in our criminal
justice system. New Yorkers will be watching to make sure
Spitzer holds true to his campaign promises. Anything less
will not be real reform.
Gabriel Sayegh is a project director at the Drug Policy
Alliance in New York City. His e-mail address is
gsayegh@drugpolicy.org
Newsday (New York)
December 12, 2006 Tuesday
NASSAU
AND
SUFFOLK EDITION
LETTERS
BYLINE: Anthony Papa,
SECTION: OPINION; Pg. A44
Meth crackdown is political hype
Regarding "Meth labs found across city, LI" [News, Dec. 1], it's no
surprise that the announcement of the big meth bust in
New York
came a day after President George W. Bush declared Nov. 30 "National
Methamphetamine Awareness Day."
It adds clout to the government's attempt to establish the ability to control
your life through the hype of a meth drug epidemic. If you look at the
statistics for meth use across the country, you find that its use is far
behind other drugs such as inhalants, hallucinogens, cocaine and marijuana.The
war on drugs has created convenient vehicles for looking tough on crime while
hiding behind the shield of public safety. But that shield gets worn down when
our basic rights are curtailed through its use.
Anthony Papa
Editor's note: The writer is communications specialist for the Drug Policy
Alliance.
In response to "Methamphetamine abuse affects us all" by Alberto R.
Gonzales: President Bush declared Nov. 30 National Methamphetamine
Awareness Day. It is a day in which the government establishes the
concrete ability to control your life through the hype of a drug
epidemic.
The war on drugs has created convenient vehicles of looking tough on
crime while hiding behind the shield of public safety. But that shield
gets worn down when our basic rights are curtailed through its use. On
Sept. 30, a new federal law went into effect that forces cold sufferers
to jump through ridiculous hoops to purchase what were originally
over-the-counter medications.
Customers with colds now must present a photo ID and sign a log in order
to purchase cold and allergy medicines containing pseudoephedrine,
ephedrine and phenylephrine -- precursor drugs that can be used to
manufacture meth. There are an estimated 34 different chemicals found
in common household products such as lighter fluid, road flares and
matches that can also be used to make meth. Are we going to create
similar laws to restrict purchases of all those items as well?
We need to invest scarce public resources into educating the public
about the use of meth and providing high-quality treatment options to
fight addiction, not create an intrusive public registry or layer on
ineffective bureaucratic busy work.
Meth Day is another law-enforcement tool that leads to the further
erosion of our precious civil liberties. It might not be apparent now,
but neither was our right to not be hassled when buying cold medicine
before the law changed.
Anthony Papa
Communications Specialist
Drug Policy Alliance
New York, N.Y.
Flash!
October 10, 2006
TASTE OF JUSTICE FAIR
In Show of Prisoners' Artwork, It's Redemption That's on Display
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 1, 2006; Page C03
As visitors flipped through bins of paintings, lingering on the ones they
liked, Anthony Papa couldn't help but recall what a paint and brush had done
for him during the 12 years he was behind bars for distributing drugs. He
had been desperate, and it was his first offense.
"Art saved my life," he said yesterday. "It helped me to
retain my sanity and regain my freedom. The greatest thing for me was my
discovery as an artist."
Anthony Papa, one of the artists whose work was shown yesterday,
wrote a book about his time in prison, "15 to Life: How I
Painted My Way to Freedom." (By Marvin
Joseph -- The Washington Post)
In a makeshift gallery in the basement of the Martin Luther King Jr.
Memorial Library in downtown Washington yesterday, the works of dozens of
incarcerated people from across the country were on display. There were
serene landscapes and joyous clowns as well as celebrity portraits,
including Tupac Shakur, Malcolm X and Ray Charles. There were also sober
renderings of prison life: a pair of shackled hands, a roll of toilet paper
next to a barren toilet.
Organizers said the importance of the pieces lies not in their artistic
value but in what the expressions represent -- a chance to rehabilitate
those who have gone astray.
"Art provides a second chance," said Dennis Sobin, director of
the District-based Prisons Foundation, which regularly showcases prison
artists.
Yesterday's Taste of Justice Fair also included dozens of victims' and
criminal rights advocates and representatives of groups that provide
services to the currently or previously incarcerated.
Among them was Rodney C. Mitchell, a District native, who served time and
now helps others who have recently left prison.
As a reentry worker for the D.C. Public Defender's Office, he sees 30 to
35 people each week, helping them clear up legal issues and get arrests
expunged from their records and steering them toward employers.
"We try to stabilize them," he said. "We try to be
holistic."
But there are not enough services to reach the 2,500 inmates who return
to the District each year, in addition to the thousands more who cycle in
and out of the D.C. jail for minor offenses, Mitchell said. Service
providers from the region and across the nation said they experience the
same problems.
One of the biggest issues was what they said were strict penalties for
drug offenses. It is the issue closest to Papa's heart. In 1985, Papa said,
a bowling buddy asked a favor: deliver a small packet of cocaine in exchange
for $500. He accepted and was caught in a drug sting.
As a result of stringent drug laws in New York state, he was convicted
and sentenced to 15 years to life. He spent 12 years in prison, studying art
and finding himself. After achieving some recognition for his work, he was
pardoned by the governor.
Now he travels the country hawking his book, "15 to Life: How I
Painted My Way to Freedom" (2004), and as an advocate for the Drug
Policy Alliance, trying to get fairer laws in place to help people convicted
of nonviolent drug offenses. "Mine is a familiar story," he said.
"Spending 15 years in a 6-by-9 cell, you really discover who you
are," he added. "Art gives people a second chance. If you go to
prison and there are no programs, you come out worse than when you came in.
Why not use the prison as a re-socialization center? You have a captive
audience."
Wearing a Superman backpack, Marcus Robertson, 7, flipped through a bin
of paintings as his father, Vince Robertson, stood nearby. One featuring a
New York cityscape caught Marcus's eye: A plane was about to crash into one
of the twin towers as the faces of dozens of people ascended skyward.
"I see people going up to Heaven," he told his father,
referring to the picture of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "My
teacher told me about that."
Robertson, a fundraiser who lives in Takoma Park, said that his work
centers on environmental and social justice issues and that he wants his
children to have broad exposure.
"I came intentionally to expose my son to this type of thing,"
he said. "I want him to understand that it's not all
entertainment."
Flash!
October 8,2006
Bartlett wins and obtains a hung jury but the D.A's office wants
to
bring her to trial again! Why not give her a break and give her a plea
bargain with no jail time involved? (which is what happened at the end in
2007)
NEW BREAK FOR ROCKY DRUG GAL
By LAURA ITALIANO NY Post
ELAINE BARTLETT
Gets a hung jury.
October 6, 2006 -- Rockefeller drug-law reform crusader Elaine Bartlett -
pardoned by Gov. Pataki in 2000 only to be rearrested last year and charged with
hiding her murdering, drug-dealing husband from cops - won another reprieve
yesterday when a Manhattan jury deadlocked on new charges.
Prosecutors promptly said they would seek a retrial.
Until her re-arrest, Bartlett, 49, had been a cause celebre for drug-law
reform, touring the country with her story of spending 16 years in an upstate
prison for agreeing to act as messenger of a 4-ounce package of cocaine in
return for $2,500.
She said she needed the money to feed her four kids.
Bartlett toured the country as the subject of a book that became the drug-law
reform bible, "Life on the Outside," by Jennifer Gonnerman.
But she was soon thrust back into the drug life, prosecutors say.
In March 2003, she married a man half her age, Deon Waterman - now serving
221/2 years to life on his conviction for killing drug dealer Vernon Dyer just
around the corner from the couple's West Harlem apartment.
Bartlett is charged with helping her husband elude police by bringing him to
her niece's house.
The niece testified against Bartlett, telling jurors her aunt insisted
Waterman stay with her, since she needed time to plan his escape either to
Canada or the Carolinas.
Bartlett, in turn, presented two witnesses on her own behalf - herself and
comedian-actor Charles Grodin.
He testified as a character witness to her truthfulness and heroic efforts on
behalf of Rockefeller drug-law "victims."
Bartlett told jurors she did not believe her husband was guilty.
Assistant District Attorney David Hammer is asking for a retrial. The next
court date, before Justice Daniel FitzGerald, was set for Oct. 19.
Need
to know where your neighborhood meth dealer lives? I think not. But the
current trend in law enforcement thinks so. Six states including
New York are considering joining
Tennessee, Illinois,
Montana
and
Minnesota in enacting a methamphetamine offender registry. These
registries will publicly display information about methamphetamine users,
makers and dealers that have been convicted of their crimes. In validating
their clarion call for registries, law enforcement officials across the
country have complained that the toxic materials found from clandestine meth
labs have poisoned communities and destroyed property.
The registry trend follows the governmental implementation of making
methamphetamine trafficking and abuse a high priority problem. When high
priority is established, desperate measures are enacted that sometimes invade
the civil liberties of citizens that seem to have nothing to do with the drug
war.
The idea of using a data base that details the
crimes of offenders is not new. Sex offenders have been under the keen eye of
the public through on line registries in all 50 states for some time now. Not
too many people would argue against their use in this manner. After all, we
must protect our
children
from predators. But, the question I ask is do we need the same type of
protection in the prohibition of methamphetamine?
In about 2004, methamphetamine jumped into the national consciousness as the
latest U.S. "drug epidemic." With covers stories that depicted methamphetamine
as "America's Most Dangerous Drug", alarmist media coverage and draconian
political responses to the dangers of methamphetamine have been reminiscent of
the public reaction to crack cocaine in the 1980s.
At the same time the implementation of the
federal governments Meth/Drug Hot Spots program was born. It offered local and
state agencies almost 400 million dollars to find and eradicate meth labs to
end the threat of the meth drug epidemic. Through financial incentives,
policing policies were increased to take advantage of the cash cow the federal
government had created, all in the name of stopping the epidemic.
However recent studies by several policy organizations like the Sentencing
Project questioned the existence this epidemic and have shown that reality
contradicts many of the myths perpetuated by the media. Their findings
concluded that methamphetamine is actually one of the rarest of illegal drugs
used, with its use declining among youth, stabilizing among adults and
demonstrating no increase in first-time users. Furthermore, even governmental
data disputes the existence of an epidemic.
The war on drugs has created convenient vehicles of looking tough on crime
while hiding being the shield of public safety. But that shield gets worn out
when our basic rights are curtailed through its use. For example, since the
recent enactment of federal laws in several states, cold sufferers now have to
jump through ridiculous hoops to purchase what were originally
over-the-counter medications. You now must show photo ID and sign a log in
order to purchase cold and allergy medicines containing pseuudoephedrine, a
drug that can be used to manufacture methamphetamine. There are an estimated
34 different chemicals that can be derived from materials like lighter fluid,
road flares and matches. Do we create similar laws to purchase them?
We need to put resources in educating the public about the use of
methamphetamine, not creating a public registry. It would be used only as
another law enforcement tool that will lead to the further restriction and
erosion of our civil liberties. It might not be apparent now, but neither was
our right to not be hassled to buy cold medicine before the law changed.
FLASH!
SEPTEMBER 17,2006 NYC DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE UNDER FIRE FOR OVER
ZEALOUS PROSECUTION OF FORMER ROCKEFELLER DRUG WAR PRISONER ELAINE BARTLETT
-
Elaine
Bartlett who served 16 years of a 20 to life sentence who was granted clemency
now is facing prison again for a trumped up charge by the NYC DA Bob Morganthau.
She is currently at trial in NYC with Judge Torres the author of "Coltios
Way" which became a major motion picure. The judge claimed "that this
was the first time in 30 years a case like this came to his court room.
Elaine is being represented by Jessy Bergman and Marge Kunstler. Elaines husband was convicted of murder. Elaine knew nothing of the crime
and refused to testify against her husband. A hung jury resulted. In
the second trial her husband was found guilty. The District Attorney's
office is throwing the book at Elaine because she refused to testify against her
husband. Despite this the DA aquired the testimony of Elaines cousin who
has several felonies and an open warrent from out of state. Now the DA claims she
hindered prosecution and is facing prison time and the tainted testimony of her
cousin who received a reward when she called in the information under NYC's
TIPS. Bob Morganthau has given breaks
to entertainer Boy George and the Pot Princess, the rich and connected seem to
be above the law but the poor and black defendants like Elaine always seem
to land in prison
By BARBARA ROSS
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER - Originally published on June 26, 2005
Elaine Bartlett, in jail in this 1995 photo, has
been locked up again.
A Harlem woman who got an early release from
prison after being touted as a victim of the harsh Rockefeller drug laws is
back in jail, this time accused of helping her young lover duck arrest on
murder charges.
Elaine Bartlett, 48, is accused of hiding boyfriend Deon Waterman, 23, in
April after he allegedly shot and killed a rival drug dealer in West Harlem,
according to court records.
Investigators said Waterman, who lived with Bartlett a few blocks from
the W. 156th St. shooting, disappeared right after the incident.
When police went to their home, Bartlett said she hadn't seen him "in a
couple of weeks," said one investigator. "We believe that to be incorrect."
They said Waterman surfaced again in mid-June when Bartlett asked
relatives to hide him until he could arrange to leave the city for the
Carolinas or Canada.
Acting on a tip, police arrested Waterman the next day and charged
Bartlett with hindering prosecution.
Last year, Bartlett was the focus of a highly praised book, "Life on the
Outside" by Village Voice writer Jennifer Gonnerman. Since then, the two
have toured the country, speaking about adjusting to a hostile world and a
damaged, angry family.
"Even the poster children for the Rockefeller drug law abuses are not
poster children," said one law enforcement source.
Bartlett attracted a lot of media attention five years ago after Gov.
Pataki agreed to cut four years from her sentence and grant clemency, saying
she was a victim of the overly harsh mandatory sentencing provisions in the
Rockefeller drug laws.
By that time, Bartlett had served 16 years of a 20-to-life sentence for
selling 4 ounces of cocaine to an undercover cop in Albany. It was her first
arrest.
Bartlett was 26 years old, on welfare and raising four young children
when she was convicted and sentenced. She told authorities she sold the
drugs to earn an extra $25 for her kids.
The Rockefeller laws required those convicted of selling more than 2
ounces of drugs or possessing more than 4 ounces to serve a minimum of least
15 years to life, regardless of whether they were drug kingpins or first
offenders like Bartlett.
Flash!
JULY 31, 2006 Special Narcotics Prosecutors Report Dismantled !
A
new report titled "Unintendent Consequences" which by the way is
a rip off of the title of our anti -Rockefeller Drug Law film that we
produced in 2004 is being questioned about its validity. Read more below
The state should target the real drug kingpins
BY ANTHONY PAPA
Anthony Papa is a communications specialist for the Drug Policy
Alliance, a New York-based organization working to reform drug
policies, and author of "15 to Life."
July 26, 2006
Ashley O'Donoghue is a low-level, nonviolent offender currently
serving a 7-to-21-year sentence for the sale of 2 1/2 ounces of
cocaine. In September 2003, the Oneida County district attorney
claimed that the 20-year-old was a major drug kingpin and needed to
face a life sentence under the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
Reacting to a commonly used scare tactic, O'Donoghue agreed to a plea
bargain. His A-1 felony, the highest possible felony, was reduced to a
B felony. Like magic, O'Donoghue was no longer a kingpin - that is, a
drug dealer distributing extraordinarily large quantities.
There are thousands of defendants just like O'Donoghue, whom
prosecutors claim are kingpins one day and then, through plea
negotiations, kingpins no more.
I went through the same experience in 1984 when I was arrested for the
sale of 4 ounces of cocaine. A Westchester assistant district attorney
claimed I was a major kingpin. But in the months that followed he
offered me a plea bargain of three years to life. He told me if I
refused the offer I would not see my 7-year-old daughter until she was
22 years old. This really frightened me, and I did not want to leave
my family alone.
I decided to go to trial and was convicted and sentenced to 15 years
to life. In 1997, after serving 12 years, I was freed by Gov. George
Pataki through executive clemency.
Recently, a report released by Bridget Brennan, New York City's
special narcotics prosecutor, proclaimed that kingpins and people
convicted of high-level drug offenses are being released under the new
Rockefeller Drug Law revisions. The report, titled "The Law of
Unintended Consequences," is a lopsided review of the Drug Law
Reform Act of 2004. The modest changes to the Rockefeller Drug Laws
have allowed approximately 1,000 people convicted of A-1 and A-2 drug
felonies to apply for resentencing. The controversial findings in the
report bolster Brennan's final conclusions: a clarion call for a
kingpin statute and opposition to any additional reforms to the
Rockefeller Drug Laws. Critics quickly questioned the validity of the
report, claiming that it contained skewed data and its creation was
politically motivated.
The report is questionable in many aspects, but I agree with Brennan
on one point: New York needs a kingpin statute. Allowing prosecutors
to define this term has meant that people like O'Donoghue and me are
kingpins one day but not the next. New York needs a clear and
reasonable kingpin statute that can be applied to real kingpins - bona
fide major traffickers - not people convicted of low-level offenses.
The kingpin statute that Brennan calls for is both unreasonable and
incompatible with justice, because it is so broad.
Brennan's report highlighted 84 drug cases handled by her office, with
65 applicants receiving judicial relief under the new law. Contrary to
Brennan's tabloidlike insinuation that the prison gates just opened
up, each prisoner seeking resentencing had to go through a lengthy
application process in order to see a judge for resentencing.
Right now there are almost 4,000 B-level felons serving time in New
York State for low-level, nonviolent drug offenses for small amounts
of drugs. Many of the defendants have drug-addiction problems. These
thousands of offenders are not classified as kingpins. So why would
Brennan actively oppose reforms to release them? It costs taxpayers
millions of dollars to incarcerate these people when community-based
treatment costs less and has proved more effective than incarceration
in treating addiction.
Brennan needs to be reminded that the governor, State Senate and
Assembly leaders agreed reforms were necessary to equally balance the
scales of justice in applying the law with the needs of protecting our
communities.
To cause a panic by releasing a questionable report is nothing more
than additional punishment for those incarcerated and an underhanded
political tactic to stop further needed reform. If Brennan wants a
kingpin statute, let's fashion one for real kingpins, not for the
low-level offenders.
Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
NY Post teams up with Special Narcotics Prosecutor to stop further Rockefeller
reforms
DOPEY
LAW FREES WORST DRUG THUGS
By
BRAD HAMILTON and SUSANNAH CAHALAN
June
18, 2006
-- Dozens of hard-core dope dealers who asked for early release under drug-law
reform are back on the streets, says
Manhattan
's top narcotics prosecutor, who is set to put out a damning report on the
alarming consequences of softening the old Rockefeller drug laws.
The
new guidelines have opened the floodgates for
New York
's most notorious coke and heroin felons in the last year and a half.
Of
the 84 who asked for a break, 39 are out, including a suspected killer, two
kingpins and a Colombian cartel associate, each of whom helped spread drugs
across
Manhattan
.
They've
all been freed since January 2005, after state lawmakers passed a measure
intended to help first-time nonviolent drug convicts - cutting penalties for
low-level offenders who got overly harsh sentences.
Addicts
and small-time dealers had been treated the same as major traffickers under
the Rockefeller laws of 1973, sometimes receiving life sentences for minor
convictions.
But
the Drug Reform Act of 2004 gave inmates a shot at having their time
trimmed. Prosecutors protested.
Now
all types of drug offenders, including so-called A-1 violent felons serving
terms up to 25 years to life, are swamping the courts with requests to get
out early.
They
get that chance due to a fatal flaw in the law - which allows any first-time
drug offender, even a kingpin or a killer, to apply for a sentence
reduction.
Legislators
tried to prevent the setting free of such offenders by requiring that each
appeal be heard by the original sentencing judge - as he or she might know
best who should get a break.
But
because of retirements on the bench, many cases are being heard by new
judges unfamiliar with the original crimes.
Bridget
Brennan, the city's special narcotics prosecutor, said the Rockefeller laws
needed to be reformed because minor offenses led to life sentences.
"The
motivation for the change was pure, but I don't think the legislators
studied this group of offenders," said Brennan, who is preparing a
report. "The ones who got the greatest benefit clearly were not the
intended beneficiaries of this reform."
The
group of recently freed dealers includes:
*
Luis Rivera, a high-ranking member of a
Lower East Side
gang who was sentenced to 25 years to life in 1990; he was released Feb. 27.
Rivera's
operation sold 10,000 glassine envelopes of heroin a day under the brand
name Black - and wreaked devastation on the neighborhood.
*
Charles Greene, the leader of a drug organization whose crack was so popular
that buyers lined up 50 deep at two locations on
West 111th Street
.
Greene,
found with a shotgun and two handguns when he was arrested in 1990, got 18
years to life, but his sentence was reduced to 16 years and he was released
July 18.
*
Enmanuel Pacheco, a bail-jumping thug from Brooklyn who dealt coke and got
out last Aug. 23, despite being implicated in a drive-by murder that
prosecutors didn't pursue because of his 15-years-to-life sentence in 1993
for multiple drug convictions.
*
Leticia Muneton, arrested near Macy's after coordinating the delivery of $43
million worth of cocaine trucked in from
Dallas
, got out July 12, after serving just six years of a 15-to-life sentence.
A special prosecutor said that revisions in
the Rockefeller drug laws benefited major drug traffickers
more than the low-level offenders they were supposed ...
www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/nyregion/27report.html
- Similar pages
From nytimes.com: A year and a half after the New York Legislature revised the
drug laws in an effort to reduce harsh prison sentences for low-level
offenders, a study by Prosecutor Bridget G. Brennan, examined 84 drug
offenders prosecuted by her office who have asked for resentencing since the
laws were changed in 2004. The offenders had been convicted of possessing or
selling enough hard drugs to make them eligible for sentences of at least 15
years to life.
The study found that judges granted lower sentences to 65 of those prisoners,
and 22 of them, or about 34 percent, were either what she called
"kingpins," leaders of international drug organizations, or
"major traffickers," that is, leaders of local drug operations that
moved large quantities of narcotics. Of the kingpins and major traffickers, 16
were granted relief from lifetime parole, and four of them have been released,
she said.
The study looked only at those cases handled by her office, which accounted
for about a quarter of the prisoners released statewide since the 2004
reforms. Advocates of the reforms said yesterday that because the special
prosecutor was charged with handling the most serious cases, the study was
somewhat skewed. Still, the study offers the first prosecutor's perspective of
how the reforms have played out at a time when legislators are still debating
whether they went too far or whether to relax the sentencing laws even
further. Rest
of Article. . . [Mark Godsey]
Even stars fall victim to drug laws: No
Walk in the Ball Park For Dwight Gooden
By Anthony Papa
MY VIEW
Watching the Mets-Red Sox series recently, I noticed they replayed clips of
Dwight Gooden in his golden years as a star pitcher.
I could not help think about his sentencing to jail in April and how his
life has turned toward tragedy. I was very sad. Not because of what he did,
but because of what the system of justice has done to him.
Gooden is serving a 366-day sentence for violating his probation by using
cocaine. This is the bottom line.
But Gooden has a medical problem - a very bad addiction to an illegal drug.
His struggles with drugs and alcohol have been well-documented. But the
obvious misfortune is that, instead of being treated as someone with a medical
condition, he is being treated like a criminal.
Americans across the country partake daily in the ritual of escaping
reality by getting high, by legal or illegal means. Addiction is a serious
problem. But to treat it strictly punitively will not alleviate its root
causes.
What moved me was that Dwight Gooden chose to give up his life as a free
man. Faced with a system of justice that has little remorse for drug users,
Gooden's back was against the wall when he made his decision to opt for the
366-day sentence. It was either that or face probation with the stipulation
that any violation could lead to a five-year sentence.
After just 10 days in a cell at a reception center in Lake Butler, he
professed in an interview that he would rather be shot than jailed again. The
prison experience had gotten to him. Some might say that the
institutionalization of addicts such as Gooden is a sure cure to the drug
problem. We might want to get a second opinion, though. Maybe we can ask a few
prime suspects of drug addiction, such as Rush Limbaugh or maybe Patrick
Kennedy, who both recently had their own eye-opening experiences with
addiction.
The question we should be asking is when will we as a society appropriately
respond to individuals with addictions? Instead of giving draconian sentences
for snorting powder or popping pills, we should be thinking of alternative
solutions.
Now Gooden is sitting in his cell, reliving his crime, thinking about the
family and life he left behind.
I know the regrets that Gooden is going through.
In 1985, I too had an addiction. In order to support my cocaine habit I
agreed to deliver an envelope of 4 ounces of cocaine for $500. I was caught
and was offered a plea deal that would carry a sentence of three years. Unlike
Gooden, I was afraid of going to jail and leaving behind my wife and young
daughter. So I went to trial and was slapped with a 15-years-to-life sentence
under New York's ultra-harsh Rockefeller Drug Laws.
While I was in Sing Sing, I watched Gooden pitch. Every pitch he made was
on the money, leading the Mets to a world championship in 1986. He was a hero
to the blacks and Latinos that were sitting around the television, cheering
him on. Many of them were sitting in prison, serving draconian sentences under
the drug laws. None of them possessed the fastball this superstar had, but
they shared his life-defeating addiction.
The war on drugs has fueled the debate on addiction. But it also has
brought the demonization that allows drug users to join the other criminals
who fill our prisons. Gooden, like myself and others with substance-abuse
problems, is a human being. We make mistakes. But, when society attempts to
lock its way out the problem of addiction, everyone loses.
Anthony Papa is the author of “15 To Life:
How I Painted My Way To Freedom" and a communications specialist for the
Drug Policy Alliance (www.drugpolicy.org).
Contact him at tpapa@drugpolicy.org
Flash! June 17 2006 Legalization of
Drugs called for by Erie County Executive
Giambra
is Right; New Approach Needed to Drug War Jun
17, 07:44 AM
By Nicolas Eyle
After more than 35 years of fighting the
current war on drugs, the latest excuse for drugs being cheaper, purer
and more available than ever is that the police aren't filling out the
paperwork correctly. ("How effective is drug war?" May 24)
Gov. Nelson Rockefeller told us that we
could put a stop to this drug business if only we had tough laws. The
threat of life in prison would cause smaller dealers to turn in those
above them in exchange for lighter sentences, and soon all the dealers
would be in prison. We filled the prisons, but it had no effect on drug
dealing.
Then we heard that if only we had more
prison space, we could lock these drug dealers up, and that would be the
end of the drug trade. Under Gov. Mario Cuomo,
New York
tripled the size of its prison system.
Today those prisons are overcrowded, mostly
with nonviolent drug offenders, and there isn't a maximum-security
prison in the state that manages to keep drugs away from the inmates.
The problem is so common that President Bill Clinton proposed a law that
would mandate drug testing for inmates before they could be released.
Now we hear that the police still haven't
got the hang of the paperwork. How many more years can we afford to have
our cities destroyed, our children exposed to these dangerous
substances, our families broken up, our court system clogged, our tax
dollars wasted and our civil rights eroded to fight the failed war on
drugs?
We've spent billions of dollars on drug
prohibition in
New York
State
. What's the result? Drugs went from being a small problem confined, for
the most part, to a few jazz musicians and some experimenting college
students, to a common commodity in our schools.
Erie County Executive Joel Giambra made a
wise suggestion when he said we should look into the idea of drug
legalization. After all, everything we come into contact with in
America
is regulated and controlled.
The chair you are sitting on passed
inspection and met some standards. As did the car you drive, the food
you eat, the TV you watch.
Everything is regulated -- everything that
is, but potentially highly dangerous drugs, which we have, by declaring
them illegal, surrendered our ability to regulate. We have turned
control of these substances over to organized crime.
Legalization doesn't mean we should put
barrels of crack cocaine on the sidewalk for people to help themselves
from. It doesn't mean there would be heroin vending machines in our
schools. It doesn't mean airline pilots should fly stoned. On the
contrary. It means regulation and control.
We owe it to ourselves to look at
alternatives to this obviously failed policy we've lived with for more
than 35 years. We need to understand that more of the same is just not
going to work. Plan A has failed;
Buffalo
needs to find a Plan B.
Nicolas Eyle is executive director of
Reconsider, a
Syracuse-
based drug policy organization.
(c) 2006 Buffalo News. Provided by ProQuest
Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.
US NY: PUB LTE: Don't Misuse the Law to Punish Kingpins
Re "Setting Kingpins Free," by Leslie Crocker Snyder ( Op-Ed, July
16 ):
In 1984, I was deemed a "drug kingpin" by the Westchester District
Attorney's Office when I was arrested for a four-ounce sale of
cocaine. When the facts came out, it was obvious that I was no
kingpin, but instead a low-level drug offender. But I was still
sentenced to 15 years to life under the Rockefeller drug laws when I
rejected a plea bargain. After serving 12 years, I was granted
clemency by Gov. George E. Pataki.
Recently, a report released by Bridget G. Brennan, New York City's
special prosecutor for narcotics, proclaimed that high-level drug
offenders are being released under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004.
Ms. Brennan called for a kingpin statute.
I agree. We do need a kingpin statue that would be applied to major
traffickers. But it should not be used as a prosecutorial tool to
encourage sentencing pleas from defendants like me.
There are hundreds of low-level, nonviolent drug law offenders stuck
in prison who deserve to have a chance to regain their freedom.
Most have served a tremendous amount of time and are eligible for
relief under the changes. They remain jailed because of the
"kingpin" rationale that has become a standard response by district
attorneys to block applications for re-sentencing under the new
reforms.
Anthony Papa
New York
The writer, a communications specialist for the Drug Policy
Alliance, is the author of a book about his experience in prison.
Flash June 7, 2006 No Reforms for
Rockefeller Drug Laws this this session!
Copyright 2006 Post-Standard
All Rights Reserved.
The Post-Standard (
Syracuse
,
New York
)
June 7, 2006 Wednesday
FINAL EDITION
SECTION:
EDITORIAL; Pg. A12
LENGTH:
343 words
HEADLINE:
STILL WAITING;
PROSPECTS
DIM FOR MORE ROCKEFELLER DRUG LAW REFORM
BODY:
Remember
the Rockefeller Drug Laws? Harsh penalties for even low-level drug offenders
are still in place, though many lawmakers in
Albany
seem to have forgotten about the issue.
Reforms
in 2004 and 2005 tinkered with the 1970s-era laws. But mandatory sentences
remain, along with rules that limit the power of judges to order drug
treatment as an alternative to incarceration.
Last
year, despite reforms that ended life sentences and allowed some appeals,
more nonviolent drug offenders were sent to prison than the year before
-
5,835, compared to 5,657, according to The Correctional Association of New
York.
It
costs
New York
taxpayers about $32,000 per year to maintain an inmate in state prison.
Outpatient drug treatment costs no more than $4,500 per person.
Even
a full-time residential treatment program costs $11,000 less than prison.
The
most damning statistic about the Rockefeller Drug Laws is their racial
consequence:
While the majority of drug users and sellers are white, 91 percent of drug
offenders in state prison are black or Hispanic.
Last
month, the state Assembly approved legislation that would allow lower-level
offenders to appeal their sentences - and return discretion to the judges,
where it belongs. The measure also increases penalties for major drug
traffickers, those who sell to children, and dealers caught with a loaded
handgun.
It's
a good bill. But it's a "one-house" bill, with no prospect of
Senate action before adjournment, scheduled for later this month. And
lame-duck Gov.
George
Pataki has shown little interest in the subject.
When
the initial reforms were approved in 2004, Senate Majority Leader Joseph
Bruno said: "There is more to be done, and we're going to get
there." Last month he would only offer this watered-down nod toward
further reform: "We are willing to address that and review that and to
make sure that justice is done."
Recent
polls indicate voters approve of drug treatment as an alternative to prison,
and support candidates who take the same view. It looks like the people are
ahead of some politicians.
LOAD-DATE:
June 8, 2006
-_________________________________
FLASH!
June 1, 2006
Deported
Rockefeller Drug Law offenders protest in Dominican Republic!
Dominican
deportees protest against
U.S.
drug law
SANTIAGO
. - "Dominican Republic does not make drugs" was
the chant from dozens of people as they marched for over
an hour yesterday on this city’s main streets, to demand
the rights of those deported from the United States.
Jose
Manuel Montesino headed the defense of the deportees, who
understands that society must treat them with equality and
not see them with the label of criminal, from having been
deported from the
United States
.
The
march, which began in the sector El Ejido, was also staged
to reject the Rockefeller Law, established in
New York
in 1973 and which stiffens the penalties against drug
dealers.
After
defying the extreme heat and walking the avenues with
their hands and feet tied and with their mouth sewn shut,
they reached the esplanade of the city’s icon El
Monumento, where Montesino again voiced demands in defense
of the deportees, alleging that these Dominican citizens
are subjected to mistreatments.
“The
first voice raised against the oppression and the
discrimination of the natives was raised by Fray Antón de
Montesino, in 1511, and today a voice rises from another
Montesino, elevating the demands for justice and equality
for all human beings, especially for we Dominicans who are
unjustly pointed to, in a discriminatory manner, by a law
that does not go in accordance with humanity and human
rights," he said.
Montesino
clarified that their position is neither against the
United States
, nor its laws in general, but explained that in fact it
is against the Nelson Rockefeller Law, as in his view it
is an unfair law for Dominicans.
In
the march, the second held in three months, Montesino
received the support several institutions and
deportees who are against this law.
"They
want to make the world think that we Dominicans are
criminal and that we are owners of drugs and it is not so.
I, Jose Manuel Montesino, can say to the entire world that
we Dominicans do not cultivate drugs, nor do we process
drugs,” he said.
The
march’s promoter also thanked president Leonel Fernandez
for his support and the freedom of __expression to demand
their rights.
Another
demonstrator who spoke for the deportees was René Vicioso,
who returned from the
United States
in 2004, after serving a 17 year sentence for drug
convictions and who heads a foundation to benefit those
Dominicans.
He
said that the idea is to make the country and the Cibao
region understand that the deportees are willing to rejoin
the society as any other person.
Media links and letter-writing
information appears below.
Albany, New York, District Attorney
David Soares has ignited a firestorm of criticism over remarks he made at
last week's International Harm Reduction Association conference in
Vancouver. But given the local response to the controversy, it may be his
critics who are feeling like they got their fingers burned.
Soares' remarks were
unsurprisingly uncontroversial in Vancouver, but that wasn't the case
back home in upstate New York. "The attempt to engage in cleaning
the streets of Albany one twenty-dollar sale on the street at a time is
a failed policy," said Soares, who was elected to office as a
critic of the state's draconian Rockefeller drug laws. The only reason
the drug war continues is "because it provides law enforcement
officials with lucrative jobs," he added. It was that last remark
that especially irked local law enforcement officials and political
figures.
Both Albany Police Chief James
Tuffey and Albany County Sheriff James Campbell ripped into Soares
after his Vancouver speech was reported in New York. County
Commissioner Ann Comella offered up a no-confidence resolution calling
on Soares to apologize for his remarks because they supposedly
insulted police officers.
Early this week, Soares
apologized for appearing to attack police officers, but clarified
that he was really attacking a failed drug policy. He was not saying
that police were in it to get rich, he explained. "I am saying
we have an incredibly expensive criminal justice system that
continues to expand as a result of laws we pass." And while he
expressed admiration for police, he stood firm on the larger issue.
"I stand by my statements; we are losing this drug war. We are
losing it ultimately here on the streets."
Soares supporters from
around the country were quick to respond. "I spent 34 years
as a cop and saw firsthand the damage caused by the war on drugs,
the cost to individual lives, public safety and community health,
not to mention the squandered taxpayer money," said Norm
Stamper, former chief of police for the city of Seattle and a
member of the advisory board of Law Enforcement Against
Prohibition (LEAP). "We all owe David Soares our respect and
admiration for speaking the truth. We need more public servants
like David, especially in the criminal justice system," said
Stamper, "It's not uncommon to be castigated or criticized
for speaking an unpopular truth."
"Without courageous,
principled leadership, the US will never develop the workable,
effective drug policies that we need to address the impact of
drug abuse on our families and communities," says Gabriel
Sayegh, Director, State Organizing and Policy Project for the
Drug Policy Alliance. "Albany County and New York State
should be proud to have a district attorney who has the
intelligence and vision to demand effective alternatives to
failed drug war policies," said Sayegh.
Soares also scored the
backing of the Albany Times Union, which in an editorial
castigated his critics. "What neither Mr. Tuffey nor
Albany County Sheriff James Campbell nor any other aggrieved
party can do is muster much of a counterargument to Mr. Soares'
larger point," the Times pointed out. "The facts are
on his side when he says, 'My advice to Canada is stay as
completely far away from US drug law policy as possible.' How
have Draconian laws that disproportionately leave blacks and
Hispanics serving excessively long prison sentences stopped
drug abuse and all the problems that come with it? What can
Mr. Soares' critics say to rebut his view that it's a fear of
reform that keeps these laws on the books?"
At the Monday night
commission meeting where Soares was supposed to be censured,
it was instead a Soares pep rally. Scores of Soares
supporters turned out, and more than 20 took the opportunity
to tell the county legislature he has their backing.
Shawn Morris,
president of the Albany Common Council, was one of them.
"The real subjects of David Soares' remarks were
lawmakers who are afraid to make a change," he said.
Chief Tuffey has
now agreed to meet with Soares, and Commissioner Comella
decided Monday evening that her no-confidence resolution
wasn't really necessary. The prohibitionist attack dogs
came after Soares, but in a sign of changing times, they
are the ones ending up licking their wounds.
Below are
links to news reports we know of about the
controversy:
Flash! May 8 2006 On the 33rd
Anniversary of Rockefeller Drug Laws the NYS Assembly
drops new reform bill!
New York State Assembly to Take Up Bill on Monday, May
8 to Further Reform Rockefeller Drug Laws
Bill Would Expand Treatment,
Continue Sentencing Reform and Increase Judicial
Discretion
Advocates, Family Members Will Be in Albany to
Demand Meaningful Reform to New York’s Draconian
Drug Laws
For Immediate Release: Friday, May 5,
2006. Contact: Tony Newman 646-335-5384 or Gabriel
Sayegh 646-335-2264
On Monday, May 8th, the New York State Assembly
is introducing legislation that would further
reform New York’s Rockefeller Drug Laws, some of
the nation’s harshest drug laws. Advocates and
family members affected by these draconian laws
will be in Albany demanding meaningful reforms of
the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
Assembly bill, A-8098, introduced by
Assemblymember Jeffrion Aubrey, would expand drug
treatment for nonviolent drug offenders, and
continue sentencing reform by allowing certain
people serving time for "B" felonies to
apply for resentencing under the new reforms - a
key piece missing in the 2004/2005 changes. The
bill would also increase judicial discretion and
allow for some people convicted of first- and
second-time drug offenses to receive treatment and
probation instead of prison.
New York’s Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (DLRA)
lowered some drug sentences but it fell short of
allowing most people serving under the more
punitive sentences to apply for shorter terms, and
did not increase the power of judges to place
addicts into treatment programs. While advocates
and family members are encouraged by the modest
reforms, they are clear that the latest reforms
have no impact on the majority of people behind
bars. Most people behind bars on Rockefeller
charges are lower-level or class-B felons.
"The two small reforms initiated by the
legislature have not provided the needed relief
for the vast majority of Rockefeller offenders. My
son Ashley is a prime example of this. He is
serving a 7 to 21 year sentence for a first time
nonviolent offense," said Cheri O’Donoghue.
"Our legislative leaders need to pass
meaningful reform that will provide relief to the
thousands of B-class felons serving time under the
Rockefeller Drug Laws. In the long run, we
need the full repeal of these inhumane drug
laws."
What: Press conference to announce Assembly
Bill A-8098
When: Monday, May 8, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Where: Speakers Conference Room
Who: Legislators, Cheri O’Donoghue, mother of
inmate serving 7 to 21 years for first-time,
non-violent drug offense under Rockefeller Drug
Laws; Tony Papa, ex-non-violent drug offender, who
served 12 years under Rockefeller Drug Laws.
Assembly
Proposes Further Reform Of Rockefeller Drug Laws
Marking
the 33rd anniversary of the enactment of New York
State's overly harsh Rockefeller Drug Laws, the
state Assembly announced passage of legislation that
would make the state's drug laws "smarter and
more effective".
Saying Rockefeller Drug Law reform "is not
done," Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver,
Correction committee chair Jeffrion Aubry and Codes
Committee chair Joseph Lentol were joined at a
Capitol news conference by key Assembly committee
chairs and drug law reform advocates.
According to Silver, the Assembly legislation
(A.8098A) seeks to "reduce drug-related crime
by addressing the substance abuse that often lies at
the core of criminal behavior." The bill would
accomplish this goal by mandating certain drug
offenders receive treatment and expanding judicial
discretion to moderate the toughest sentences. In
addition, Silver noted, the bill would increase
sentences for major drug traffickers and drug
offenders who prey on children. The measure also
creates the new crime of possession of a firearm
while selling or attempting to sell drugs.
Silver and Aubry noted that while an important first
step was made in 2004 to moderate the harshest
sentences under the state's drug laws, more needs to
be done. The two noted that despite previous pledges
by the executive and the Senate to continue working
on this issue, no bills have been introduced this
year to demonstrate that commitment.
"This bill provides for the kind of judicial
and correctional reforms the Assembly has been
seeking for years and that are at the heart of any
effort to curb addiction and drug-related
crimes," said Silver. "Our smart,
comprehensive approach seeks to get to the root of
our state's drug problem by hitting the drug
kingpins hard, and getting the low-level, non
violent offenders the treatment they need to get off
and stay off drugs."
"Despite a commitment made two years ago by the
governor and the Senate to revisit New York's
ineffective and imprudent drug laws, they have
failed to come forward with any further steps that
would provide additional reforms," said Aubry.
"We in the Assembly continue to recognize that
existing laws are badly flawed and in need of
further changes. My bill fulfills our commitment by
providing for a more sensible, comprehensive and
cost-effective approach for dealing with low-level
drug offenders and addicts."
The cornerstone of the Assembly plan is an effort to
reduce crime rates by ensuring that non-violent
offenders complete effective drug treatment.
Under the Assembly plan, prosecutors would get the
first chance at deciding whether low-level,
non-violent drug offenders would be diverted from
prison to drug-treatment programs through the new
"Court Approved Drug Abuse Treatment
Program." Only after this initial prosecutorial
determination had been made would the judge be
empowered to make a decision on treatment under the
program. Drug treatment under the new initiative
would generally have a minimum one-year term and
include time in a residential drug-treatment
facility. Those who do not successfully complete
treatment would face a felony conviction, which, for
repeat offenders, would mean a mandatory state
prison sentence. Diversion would not be available
for offenders who committed violent felonies or sold
or attempted to sell drugs to minors.
Each drug-treatment plan would have to include a
drug-testing component. Offenders would generally be
subject to probation supervision while receiving
drug treatment.
Judges would be given additional discretion to order
non-violent offenders to DOCS' Willard
drug-treatment facility in Seneca County. Judges
would also be given the authority to sentence
eligible drug offenders directly to the DOCS-run
shock incarceration program. Both options would have
to include a drug-treatment component and provide
continuing drug treatment upon release from prison.
In addition, judges would be given the discretion to
sentence additional non-violent offenders who
possessed small quantities of narcotics to drug
treatment as an alternative to incarceration.
Another important component of the Assembly's
proposal would give judges greater discretion to
impose appropriate sentences designed to fit the
facts and circumstances of each drug-related crime.
The Assembly's sentencing changes would:
Increase possession thresholds required to meet
certain Class A-I and A-II felony sentences from
four to eight ounces and two to four ounces,
respectively. This change would not be applicable to
major drug traffickers;
Increase possession thresholds for lower level drug
possession crimes; and
Increase penalties for major drug traffickers.
The Assembly plan not only increases sentences for
major drug traffickers and adult offenders peddling
drugs to our children, providing life maximum
sentences to drug kingpins, but it also combats the
deadly connection between drugs and firearms. The
proposal would impose a mandatory five-year
determinate sentence upon offenders who carried a
loaded handgun while selling or attempting to sell
drugs.
Drug-treatment programs operated in prisons and in
conjunction with the courts, the Division of Parole
and probation departments would be reformed and
enhanced under the Assembly plan.
The Assembly approach recognizes that enacting and
fully funding Chief Judge Judith Kaye's initiative
to expand drug courts to every county in the state
is key to providing necessary treatment reforms.
These drug courts would provide the needed judicial
monitoring and infrastructure to assure strict
compliance with treatment requirements.
Every inmate on probation, on parole or in a state
correctional facility with a documented drug or
alcohol-abuse problem would be required to undergo a
drug or alcohol- abuse treatment program lasting at
least one year. Mandatory tests for drug abuse would
be required.
Mandatory drug or alcohol treatment would also be
required for appropriate juvenile delinquents and
juvenile offenders.
An important goal of the Assembly plan is to make
the Willard drug-treatment facility, which is
jointly run by the state Department of Correctional
Services and Division of Parole, a more effective
treatment and crime-reducing tool. Under the plan,
judges would be given the discretion to sentence
statutorily eligible offenders to the Willard
program and participation would be expanded to
include non-violent Class "B" and
"C" drug offenders. Also, all Willard
"graduates" would be required to undergo
an additional year-long treatment program following
release from the Willard facility. Because
transitional services are critical to reducing
recidivism, the Assembly plan statutorily
establishes these programs.
Another key component of the Assembly's plan
strengthens post-release supervision by reducing
offender/parole officer caseloads for certain
released drug offenders. 5-09-06
Whether
you love him or hate him, want him to go to jail or not, conservative
commentator Rush Limbaugh has become a national symbol for drug addiction.
Rush's recent clash with the law reminds us that drug addiction does not
discriminate. Unfortunately, our drug policies do.
Rush was investigated for illegally obtaining
thousands of addictive prescription pain killers. Criminal charges were
dropped against him in Florida when he worked out a plea agreement which
included a $30,000 penalty and continued drug treatment.
Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug
Policy Alliance has called for treatment instead of incarceration for Rush
Limbaugh. "The Alliance's guiding principle is that people should not be
punished for what they put into their own bodies, but only for crimes
committed against others. According to that logic, Rush--even Rush-- should be
allowed to deal with his issues with drugs privately."
Rush Limbaugh's noxious lack of sympathy for
others in similar predicaments tests one's commitment to the idea of
non-incarceration, compassion and treatment for all non-violent drug
offenders. Many who normally support treatment instead of incarceration
would love to see Limbaugh locked up and to get a taste of his own medicine.
Rush has demonized drug offenders to his national audience of "dittoheads."
Less than two weeks ago, Limbaugh weighed in on
the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) announcement that there were no
"sound scientific studies" supporting the medicinal use of
marijuana. His diatribe was characteristically callous and harsh toward sick
and dying people who use medical marijuana as Limbaugh blathered "the FDA
says there's no -- zilch, zero, nada -- shred of medicinal value to the evil
weed marijuana. This is going to be a setback to the long-haired,
maggot-infested, dope-smoking crowd."
This distain for medical marijuana patients is
not the first time Rush showed a lack of compassion to people who use drugs or
suffer from addiction. Limbaugh is the man who scoffed at the idea that
African Americans are disproportionately arrested on drug charges, and
suggested that the solution was to arrest more white people. Interestingly
enough, Mr. Limbaugh sang a different tune when he was the white person who
could have easily ended up behind bars if he was not the famous radio
personality that he is.
This point is very close to my heart, as
someone who, through addiction, was sentenced to 15 years to life for a
non-violent drug offense. Even though, I am someone who Rush said deserved to
be behind bars, I am willing to turn the other cheek and advocate for him to
get treatment instead of the jail cell that I was given. Some might argue that
there is a difference between the use of prescription drugs and illegal ones.
But as Limbaugh's case underscores, addiction does not discriminate between
legal and illegal substances.
Limbaugh contends that his addiction was a by-product of taking painkillers
for chronic pain from a back injury. Many people with diseases ranging from
back pain to cancer use marijuana to treat pain, nausea, glaucoma and various
other symptoms associated with their conditions. Instead of pot, Limbaugh
chose painkillers to treat his ailments. What's the difference? One drug is
demonized, while the other is not.
One can only hope Limbaugh's experiences with
addiction and the drug war will encourage him to join the movement to reform
drug policy. Mr. Limbaugh has an enormous platform and reach. If he decided to
take up the cause of treatment instead of incarceration for drug users, he
could help change laws across the country. After all, if treatment instead of
jail is good enough for him as he struggles with his addiction, surely it is
good enough for the thousands of others just like him who struggle with their
substance abuse every day.
The war on drugs reached the pinnacle of cruelty when
18-year-old Mitchell Lawrence was sentenced to two years in jail for selling a
teaspoonful of marijuana to an undercover police officer for $20.
On June 30, 2004, detective Felix Aguirre, employed by
the Drug Task Force, was assigned the duty of going undercover to buy drugs
from kids who hung out in a parking lot in
Berkshire
County
in
Massachusetts
. Merchants had complained to police about the kids. Mitchell Lawrence was
there with his pipe and a few buds of marijuana. He had no idea the parking
lot was less than 1,000 feet from a preschool located in the basement of a
church, nor did he know this parking lot was the site of a police sting
operation.
Aguirre approached Mitchell and asked him if he had any
weed. Mitchell pulled out a small bag of marijuana. The cop offered him $20.
Mitchell hesitated; Aguirre insisted. Mitchell, who had seen Aguirre hanging
out with other kids, motioned the cop to follow him up the street where he
intended to smoke with him. Aguirre waved the $20 in his face. Mitchell, who
was broke at the time, took the money, the first time he had ever accepted
money in exchange for marijuana.
In the months that followed, Aguirre approached Mitchell
again for marijuana. This time, however, Mitchell refused. Weeks later, a crew
of undercover cops stormed Mitchell's home and placed him under arrest.
Mitchell was found guilty of distribution of marijuana, committing a drug
violation within a drug-free school zone and possession.
On March 22, 2006, Mitchell Lawrence was sentenced to two
years in prison.
While this outrageous case happened in a sleepy burg in
Massachusetts
, the case of Mitchell Lawrence is one of countless tales of drug war madness
that takes place on
America
's streets daily.
Mitchell Lawrence's story was eerily familiar to me. In
1985, I was the subject of a police sting operation after passing an envelope
containing four ounces of cocaine to undercover officers in
Mount Vernon
,
New York
. I was set up by someone who offered me $500 to transport the package. The
individual who introduced me to the cop was an informant facing life in
prison. He was offered a deal -- the more people he helped ensnare, the less
time he would serve. I received a sentence of 15 years to life under
New York
's draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws.
Mitchell Lawrence's disproportionate sentence was handed
down one day before the release of a national report by the Justice Policy
Institute (JPI) titled, "Disparity by Design: How Drug-free Zone Laws
Impact Racial Disparity and Fail to Protect Youth," which includes
research from Massachusetts.
The JPI study, commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance,
found that drug-free zone laws do not serve their intended purpose of
protecting youth from drug activity. The
Massachusetts
data on drug enforcement in three cities found that less than one percent of
the drug-free zone cases actually involved sales to youth. Additionally,
Massachusetts
researchers found that nonwhites were more likely to be charged with an
offense that carries drug-free zone enhancement than whites engaged in similar
conduct. Blacks and Hispanics account for just 20 percent of
Massachusetts
residents, but 80 percent of drug-free zone cases.
"School zone laws have remained unchanged in
Massachusetts
because the legislature has been promised that prosecutors use
discretion," said Whitney A. Taylor, executive director of the Drug
Policy Forum of Massachusetts. "Unfortunately, the life of a young man
has been sacrificed, proving that discretion is not being used, and that the
law must be changed."
Mitchell Lawrence was not the only person arrested in an
undercover drug operation in the summer of 2004. There were a total of 18
others, including five young people who are still awaiting trial for alleged
sales that took place at the same Great Barrington parking lot.
District Attorney David F. Capeless is the man behind
Berkshire
County
enforcement and entrapment. Capeless is a hard-nosed drug war zealot, who
insists that these laws are effective in combating drug use -- even if it
means ruining a young man's life in the process.
Mitchell Lawrence was set to graduate from high school
this spring. Instead, he will watch his fellow classmates graduate from his
prison cell.
The common thread between my case, Mitchell's case and
drug-free school zones nationally is the abuse of power from the prosecutors
through the application of mandatory minimums. These laws handcuff judges and
force them to impose harsh sentences.
Mitchell Lawrence's conviction inspired a group of
concerned
Berkshire
County
residents to seek Capeless' ouster in the upcoming district attorney race.
Defense attorney Judith Knight answered the call to fill this role. Knight, a
former assistant district attorney for
Middlesex
County
, said Mitchell Lawrence's conviction was "the tipping point" for
her decision to run against Capeless in the upcoming Democratic primary
election in September.
"A tough prosecutor is tough on crime and also has
the ability to demonstrate compassion and insight when the case calls for
it," Knight says. She hopes to follow in the footsteps of David Soares,
who ran for district attorney and defeated Paul Clyne in
Albany
,
New York
, in 2004. Soares ran a race primarily on the platform of Rockefeller Drug Law
reform. He easily defeated the sitting district attorney, who refused to
change his views on the draconian drug law legislation of
New York
.
It is heartening that communities like
Berkshire
County
are fighting back and attempting to hand reckless district attorneys and other
politicians the pink slip. Choosing to destroy lives and indiscriminately
apply laws does more harm than good, ultimately, and it doesn't make our
streets any safer.
Little over thirty years ago Governor Nelson Rockefeller and the New York
State legislature created the toughest drug laws in the nation. Their aim was
to curb the drug epidemic, capture drug kingpins and create harsh drug laws
that would combat drug use and selling. In reality this did not occur. Instead
these laws have filled our prisons with non violent drug offenders, primarily
from NYC neighborhoods. Over 94 percent of those incarcerated are black and
Latino. Over 80 percent of New Yorkers agree that these laws are not effective
and there is a need to created meaningful reform. In 2002 for the first time
in history the governor of New York and legislative leaders called for reform.
In 2004 and 2005 following that call, the New York Stare Legislature imposed
changes in the Rockefeller Drug Laws. These reforms were meant to allow
current drug offenders who have already served long sentences to apply for
reduced sentences. They also lowered drug sentences and expanded prison-based
drug treatment. These minor reforms, in theory, would affect about 1000 drug
war prisoners eligible for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act (DRLA).
I served 12 years of a 15 to life sentence for a non-violent drug offense
after passing an envelope to undercover officers containing 4 ounces of
cocaine in exchange for 500 dollars. I made the biggest mistake of my life
just like many others who are serving hard time. In 1997 I was granted
clemency by Governor Pataki, who recognized the injustice of my sentence. Most
of the people I left behind were serving long sentences for non-violent drug
offenses. I then became an activist who has fought tooth and nail for
meaningful reform and was very disappointed to see that very little was done
in the minor changes made in 2004 and 2005.
While these changes were a first small step, much more needs to be done, like
addressing the issue of the 4,800 B-felons who make up the largest group of
drug prisoners. Currently selling small quantities of drugs can land you a
sentence up to nine years for a first offense, equal to a B-level crime such
as rape or armed robbery.
But almost more upsetting than the lack of changes has been the response made
by the prosecutors of New York, who often distort the facts associated with
these reforms. The most outspoken opponents of these laws have continuously
put out a "war cry" to the media and the public about the dangers of
revising these laws and how the gateways of hell would be open if the laws
were changed. If you look through their hype you will discover the underlying
reasoning behind their stance. Prosecutors live and die by their rates of
conviction. This is the bottom line.
With activists inching closer to meaningful reform comes the reality that
prosecutors would eventually lose their omnipotent power in drug law cases. As
it stands with the new reforms they maintained this power. They still control
the outcome of a drug case from its beginning.
While the prosecutors point to a handful of people who are undeserving of
relief under the new reforms, the vast majority are non-violent offenders who
deserve a chance to reenter society and be treated with compassion. Just like
when NYC District Attorney Bob Morgenthau showed compassion recently for the
NYU "Pot Princess" Julia Diaco who was sentenced to treatment and 5
years probation instead of a 25 year sentence for 8 separate felony sales. And
before her , Governor Pataki's former Rockefeller Drug Law spokesperson who
was busted for buying crack cocaine and sentenced to a 250-dollar fine and
treatment.. We have to think about the concept of redemption and compassion
for all. People can change their lives. I know this for a fact.
According to Drug Policy Alliance, a leading policy group in NYC, 70 percent
of the 1,000 prisoners that were eligible for relief under the new reforms are
still in prison.
One of the most significant reasons for this is that prosecutors almost always
argue for the maximum sentence, ignoring the records of rehabilitation and
relying on old facts that were maintained many years earlier. One of the most
controversial points of Rockefeller reform is judicial discretion. Under the
current laws, judges have little power to place offenders in treatment. The
power is maintained by the prosecutors, who also decide what charges are
appropriate. Advocates for reform argue how could justice be served by
allowing the one party who measures success by their conviction rates?
Discretion should be available to the presiding judge, who is the only
objective person in the case.
It may be true that inner city neighborhoods are devastated by drug use.
However, this is not the only root cause for this. Lack of opportunity,
unemployment and education are also contributing factors. One of the most
significant factors is also the lack of drug treatment. Under the new reforms
the State legislature did not fund community based treatment, which has been
found to be the most cost effective way to reduce drug use.
While in prison, I became a jailhouse lawyer and litigated dozens of drug
cases and never once came across a "drug kingpin". Most of these
prisoners were non-violent drug users that needed treatment. However,
treatment was not available in prison then, and it is not available now.
We need to create laws that will protect the community and at the same time be
fair and just. The Rockefeller Drug Laws in many ways have become crueler than
the crimes that are committed. They go beyond the individuals that committee
crimes. They destroy their families and put a financial burden on tax payers
that foot the bill for an ancient and proven ineffective approach to the drug
problem. The drug war has fueled the prison industrial complex. Since 1982, 33
prisons have been built in rural Republican upstate communities. They have
become a source of revenue for upstate politicians that have discovered a cash
cow. Instead of filling our prisons with non-violent drug offenders we should
concentrate on alternatives like drug treatment and the creation of jobs and
education for the communities of color which is affected the most in the
efforts to lock our way out of the drug problem. Only then will we be able to
solve the drug war problem in New York.
Anthony Papa is the author of 15 To Life: How I Painted My Way to Freedom
New York's drug laws ensure
that the privileged and connected receive leniency for the same offenses
that send thousands of blacks and Latinos to prison.
Julia Diaco, the so-called "Pot Princess" was sentenced on March 22
in Manhattan Supreme Court to five years' probation for drug dealing. Diaco was
18 years old when she was arrested for multiple sales of drugs to undercover
narcotic officers from her dorm room at NYU. Despite having a "strong"
case against her and facing up to 25 years in prison if convicted, she received
probation upon completing a drug rehab and education program.
This follows the high-profile case of Caroline Quartararo, a former
spokeswoman on Rockefeller drug law reform for Gov. Pataki who received a
similar minor sentence after being arrested with crack cocaine. Quartararo was
given treatment and a $250 fine. She was arrested on Dec. 20 for possessing
three rocks of crack cocaine. She pleaded guilty to seventh-degree criminal
possession of a controlled substance.
Cheri O'Donoghue, whose son Ashley is currently serving a sentence of 7-21
years for a first-time nonviolent drug offense, said the cases of Julia Diaco
and Caroline Quartararo prove that "if you are rich and privileged, you
will likely receive compassion from the courts.
"While I support the notion of compassion and access to treatment for
people who use and abuse drugs," said O'Donoghue, "the reality is that
people of color who get caught up in the criminal justice system generally
receive neither." While drug use rates are similar between blacks and
whites, approximately 92 percent of the people in prison on drug charges in New
York are black and Latino.
O'Donoghue's 23-year-old son, who is black, sold cocaine to two white
students, who in turn sought to resell the drugs on their Hamilton College
campus. The students were caught and received probation. Ashley O'Donoghue was
left to languish in prison, another casualty of the draconian Rockefeller drug
laws. He is one of more than 4,000 people sitting in New York state prisons
convicted of B-level Rockefeller drug law felonies. The modest reforms to the
state's drug laws in 2004 and 2005 have no impact on these B-level offenders.
Gabriel Sayegh, director of the State Organizing and Policy Project of the
Drug Policy Alliance says New Yorkers want to see meaningful Rockefeller Drug
Law reform. "Even after the reforms last year, the vast majority of people
incarcerated under these failed laws are still languishing behind bars," he
said. "Our elected officials in Albany need to take action to enact real
reform of these laws, so that young men like Ashley O'Donoghue can receive the
same compassion as those who are rich, well-connected or are employed by the
governor."
March 23, 2006 -- In other Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free
news, NYU "Pot Princess" Julia Diaco skated out of Manhattan
Supreme Court Tuesday after getting probation for narcotics crimes that
would have earned any less fortunate soul a very long stretch upstate
indeed.
Take a bow, DA Bob Morgenthau.
Diaco, who was running a veritable narcotics superstore out of her NYU
freshman dorm, had her wrist lightly tapped by Justice Charles Solomon,
pursuant to a deal worked out with Morgenthau's minions - the same crew
that let fading pop icon Boy George slide on felony-weight cocaine
charges this month.
True, the singer wasn't accused actually of selling narcotics -
unlike Diaco, who peddled drugs to undercover cops on eight
separate occasions.
But she has resources: Her lawyer, Paul Schechtman, is Gov. Pataki's
former criminal justice coordinator - and so she will do five years
probation, max.
Unlike say, Anthony Papa, who, as The Post reported yesterday, was
purportedly a first-time, nonviolent drug dealer when he was
busted in 1984 under the so-called Rockefeller drug laws -
ultimately serving 12 years of hard time.
The Rockefeller-era mandatory-sentencing laws are a complicated
subject.
But while they're not nearly as "draconian"
as some of New York's criminal-coddlers would have the public
believe, they are serious business, indeed.
Suffice it to say that, under those laws, very few drug
dealers who are not young, white, attractive women from
wealthy New Jersey construction families, with the money for
all-star attorneys like Schechtman, get terms of probation.
Oh, yeah - pop stars get breaks, too.
Which makes the arguments of Rocky-law critics - that
they permit double standards, with sentences driven by
race, class and other subjective factors - a lot more
persuasive.
The Rocky laws need to be strictly enforced.
Or repealed.
Flash!
March 22, 2005 - Pot Princess Gets Compassion!
March 22, 2006 -- The so-called "Pot
Princess" got a fairy-tale ending in Manhattan Supreme Court
yesterday, where she was sentenced to five years' probation for
dealing drugs on and around the NYU campus.
Julia Diaco, 20, was officially slapped on the wrist after her
lawyer told Justice Charles Solomon that, as per the deal she'd
worked out with prosecutors, she'd successfully completed her
drug rehab and education program.
Asked if she wanted to say anything before her sentencing,
Diaco - dressed in a dark, pinstriped skirt suit with
knee-high stiletto-heeled boots - whispered, "No."
Her lawyer, Paul Schechtman, told the judge his client had
taken "a long journey and a successful one."
Diaco - who had cracked wise to reporters after her arrest
in 2004 - declined comment as she left court. Schechtman
said, "She's a very different person than she was 18
months ago, and she has a bright future ahead of
her."
Diaco was facing up to 25 years in prison had she been
convicted of the top charges against her at trial.
Prosecutors apparently had a strong case against her -
including videotape of her selling marijuana, magic
mushrooms, LSD and cocaine to undercover officers.
While she was selling small amounts, she was also
dealing on a regular basis, using her NYU dorm as
her "base of operations," prosecutors
said.
Prosecutors said she dealt to undercover officers
eight times, with her biggest deal $650 worth of
cocaine, and would ply her wares on and around the
NYU campus, including Washington Square Park.
When she was arrested, she was carrying several
ounces of marijuana and a scale.
The case was surprising because the petite
Diaco didn't need the money - she's the
daughter of a millionaire builder and grew up
in a castle-like mansion in tony Rumson, N.J.
Diaco pleaded guilty to drug possession and
sale charges in 2004, but was allowed to
withdraw that plea and plead guilty to
lesser versions of those charges yesterday
after successfully completing her drug rehab
program and passing her drug tests.
She now attends a community college in New
Jersey.
News of the deal frustrated Anthony
Papa, 51, who, like Diaco, was once a
first-time, non-violent offender.
Instead of probation, he was sentenced
to 15 years to life in prison for
delivering four ounces of cocaine for a
police informant to an undercover cop
for a $500 fee.
The owner of a struggling auto repair
business in The Bronx, Papa was
desperate for cash and couldn't afford
a pricey lawyer.
"I get angry with a case like
this because the laws are not
applied equally. Because she had
money and the right lawyers, she
didn't go to jail. Others should
have that same opportunity," he
said. "All people should be
treated like this woman - with
compassion."
State drug reform law needs to reform ... itself - by
Anthony Papa
Anthony Papa is the author of "15 To Life: How I Painted My Way to
Freedom."
March 14, 2006
Just more than a year ago, Albany launched a partial reform of New
York's drug laws through the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004.
The State Legislature boasted that the new changes would lower most drug
sentences, allow for the application of retroactive resentencing,
increase time off for good behavior for drug offenders and expand
prison-based drug treatment. In theory, the implemented changes were to
affect about 1,000 prisoners. But these changes weren't effective.
I once served 12 years in prison for a first-time, nonviolent drug
offense, and I've been working for meaningful reform of these laws for
the past nine years. I have worked the political spectrum of the issue,
meeting with the governor and legislative leaders. I have broken bread
with the family members and the prisoners who have been affected by
these draconian laws. I know this issue inside-out and recognize what
needs to be done to remedy the problem.
According to the Drug Policy Alliance, an advocacy organization based in
New York, almost 70 percent of the people eligible for relief under the
new drug reform act are still in prison. One of the main reasons is that
the act gives judges a wide range of sentencing options for those who
apply for resentencing. Judges could reduce the sentence of a first-time
offender who has already served a lengthy term to as little as eight to
20 years. But prosecutors almost always argue for the maximum sentence,
relying on facts about acts done many years earlier and ignoring the
record of rehabilitation while in prison. This omission impedes the
process tremendously.
The most controversial sticking point of Rockefeller reform is judicial
discretion in drug sentencing. Under the 2004 law, judges have very
limited power to place a drug offender into treatment. Instead, the
power is held by the prosecutor, who also decides what charges are made
and how the plea process is applied.
Reform advocates argue that this is unfair. Such power should not be
controlled by the one party who measures success by conviction rates.
Referral to treatment, by the way, is not considered a win by the
prosecutors. Instead, discretion should be made available to the judge,
who is the one objective person involved in the case.
Legislation intended to lead to further reform of the drug laws is
expected to be introduced in the Assembly next month. But chances of its
passage this year are regarded as slim.
Drug treatment has not been expanded in state prisons. While I was
incarcerated in Sing Sing under a 15-to-life sentence, I saw that the
majority of prisoners around me were there because of small-time drug
crimes. Many had drug habits. Proper drug treatment programs were not
available then and are not available now.
Under the 2004 reforms, the State Legislature did not fund
community-based treatment. This is a cost-effective way to reduce drug
abuse. Without proper funding, increased numbers of people will be
forced to compete for limited treatment slots. The cycle of addiction
will continue, along with crime and recidivism.
The legislature also failed to address the application of resentencing
eligibility for 4,800 B-level felons who comprise the largest group of
drug-war prisoners. New York drug laws define offenses according to the
weight of the narcotics involved in individual cases. Thus, an A-1
felony - the most serious - involves the largest quantities. An A-2
felony involves somewhat less.
The sale of a small amount of drugs can be equated with a B-level crime
such as armed robbery or rape, carrying a sentence of up to nine years
for a first offense. Establishing a quantity requirement for the B-level
sale of a narcotic drug, as is the case for other drugs, would remove
many of the lowest-level street sales from the category of B felonies.
This change would reduce the prison population, making the cells now
occupied by small-time drug offenders available for violent offenders,
without an additional financial burden.
The governor and the legislature should be applauded for taking the
initial step in reforming the Rockefeller drug laws. But the partial
reforms are not reaching the people they were intended to help.
We must continue to challenge the legislature and the district attorneys
to apply these changes effectively and, more important, compel further
meaningful reform.
Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
Flash!
2/8/06 - Al - Grandpa - Lewis - great Rockefeller Drug Law activist
dies
The Leonard Lopate Show
(audio)
We
cover a lot of ground, yet again, on today's
up with his latest,
,
just released on Kindle today.
EMAIL
PRINT
8 COMMENTS
