COHEN, continued

The statutes that were affected by these mandatory minimums were the felony charges under New York Penal Code 220.00. Crimes of sale and possession of specific amounts of a wider range of narcotic drugs were now being considered felonies instead of misdemeanors (West Group 6). New categories of felonies, A-II and A-III, were created specifically to deal with drug related crimes. The greater the quantity involved the greater the sentence, but with all amounts there is a correlating mandatory sentence time required.

In 1977, three years after the new drug laws were enacted, The Joint Committee on New York Drug Law Evaluations, a partnership between the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and the Drug Abuse Council, Inc., conducted a study of the “Rockefeller Drug Laws.” According to their published report, The Nation’s Toughest Drug Law: Evaluating the New York Experience, the Committee found that heroin related crime and heroin use were just as widespread as they were prior to the passing of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. This report also stated that heroin dealing was still occurring openly in the streets.

The Rockefeller Drug Laws have existed and been used for over 30 years and we are still encountering problems with drug use, drug distribution, and drug related crimes. There are a lot of people, including judges, lawyers, prosecutors, and families of loved ones who were sentenced under these laws, who feel that these laws are unnecessarily harsh and are not really solving the problems they were intended to solve. There have been numerous studies done to prove this, as well as to show alternatives to these extremely harsh laws. There are also many government officials who agree that these laws need to be reformed since they have caused many changes to our Criminal Justice system that were not anticipated in 1973 when they were enacted.

According to a report, “Stupid and Irrational and Barbarous: New York Judges Speak Against the Rockefeller Drug Laws,” by the Correctional Association of New York (CANY) we hear what aspects of the Criminal Justice System have been affected, as well as what some Judges have to say about the harsh sentences they were forced to impose. According to this report and the statements from numerous judges that have had to sentence people under these laws, the judges feel that they are not given the discretion that they need in order to sentence people fairly according to circumstance. Judges cannot consider any other information when handing out a sentence since they are confined to the mandatory sentencing guidelines required by New York’s strict drug laws. Appellate Court Justice Leo Hayes summed up many judges’ views:

I am totally against mandatory minimum sentencing. In my experience on the bench, I have seen sentences that are ridiculous. Judges should reserve it to themselves to impose sentences. DA’s should have input, but judges should retain ultimate control. There are many sentencing alternatives available through the Probation Department. Judges should have discretion over who goes to prison versus alternative sentence. These laws were initially passed because DA’s were dissatisfied with the disparity in sentencing. DA’s do play an important part in the process. They often know things about the defendant that we don’t know. They should work with the court and make their recommendation. But ultimately, sentencing court judges should decide, not Da[A]’s.

PAGE 1 | PAGE 2 | PAGE 3 | PAGE 4 | PAGE 5