Pubdate: Thu, 13 Dec 2001
Source: Albany Times Union (NY)
Copyright: 2001 Capital Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation
Contact:  http://www.timesunion.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/8
Note: Editors discuss recent report where judges complain that laws give 
prosecutors too much power to abuse defendants' due process rights and 
concludes that the state's drug crime laws "In short, ...is a system rigged 
for miscarriages of justices, and urgently in need of reform."
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?140 (Rockefeller Drug Laws)

'BARBAROUS' JUSTICE

Report Reflects Judges' Long-standing Criticism of Harsh Rockefeller Drug Laws

New York State's Rockefeller Drug Laws, enacted in 1973 in an attempt to 
combat a growing scourge of addiction, have instead become monstrosities of 
their own by mandating harsh terms that are "stupid and irrational" and an 
"absolute atrocity." And when used by prosecutors to induce guilty pleas, 
the statutes "contravene the cruel and unusual constitutional interdictions 
... "

These scathing remarks would be unsettling enough if they came from 
activists who have long advocated reform. But they are even more unsettling 
because the critics are none other than the very judges who are required by 
the Rockefeller Drug Laws to impose a term of 15 years to life for those 
convicted of selling two ounces or possessing four ounces of a narcotic 
substance.

To Bronx County Supreme Court Justice Frank Torres, the drug laws are 
barbarous and an atrocity. He expressed his frustrations during a 1996 
sentencing of a man to a 15-year minimum term, noting that it was 
equivalent to that for taking a human life. The charge of cruel and unusual 
punishment was made almost 20 years before Judge Torres' remarks, by Bronx 
Supreme Court Justice Mary Johnson Lowe. Thus, for almost as long as they 
have been on the books, the laws have been challenged by the judiciary. 
What an inversion of due process.

Nor are the critics concentrated downstate. To the contrary, the judges who 
have weighed in against the Rockefeller laws preside around the state, 
including Supreme Court justices in Orange, Broome and Monroe counties, as 
well as downstate. And several appellate judges have joined them over the 
years in denouncing the statutes. The Correctional Association of New York, 
a longtime advocate for drug law reform, has just issued a compilation of 
these stinging remarks by jurists that, as a whole, make a compelling case 
for reform.

More important, the judges' comments provide a persuasive counter-argument 
to the claims by district attorneys that the Rockefeller Drug Laws should 
be retained as an important law-enforcement tool. Regrettably, state 
lawmakers seem to have bought the DAs' claim that the laws help them win 
guilty pleas and encourage defendants to provide information leading to the 
arrest of others.

The prosecutors are skilled at making a persuasive case in the courtroom, 
so it is no surprise that they have been able to keep many lawmakers on 
their side. But the judges are even more persuasive when they punch holes 
in the prosecutors' arguments. That is just what happened in 1978, for 
example, when Justice Lowe observed: "Life imprisonment is mandated if the 
defendant exercises his constitutional right to go to trial and loses, 
while probation may be imposed if he pleads guilty ... . Can one truly say 
that a defendant who opts for the plea plus probation has made a 'voluntary 
choice,' or has the state so loaded the dice that the hazard of the roll 
chills the free exercise of the trial alternative?"

As New York County Supreme Court Justice James Yates noted in a 1996 
interview, the person who decides whether a defendant in a drug case gets a 
break is "an assistant district attorney who is not bound by written public 
guidelines or standards, is not compelled to hear arguments in favor of 
reduction, is not required to explain or justify the decision, is not held 
accountable by the public or through judicial processes and the decision is 
not reviewable by any court ... "

In short, it is a system rigged for miscarriages of justices, and urgently 
in need of reform.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jackl