Pubdate: Wed, 14 Dec 2005
Source: Asbury Park Press (NJ)
Copyright: 2005 Asbury Park Press
Contact:  http://www.app.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/26
Author: Jon Shure
Note: Jon Shure is president of New Jersey Policy  Perspective, a nonprofit,
nonpartisan organization in  Trenton that conducts research on state issues.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?217 (Drug-Free Zones)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)

DRUG-FREE SCHOOL ZONES KEEPING PRISON CELLS FULL

It seemed like a good idea at the time. If you want to  be serious
about fighting crime, make rules that are  very strict and inflexible.

A prime example was the law that says if someone is  convicted of a
drug crime within 1,000 feet of a  school, they will be subject to a
more severe penalty  than someone who is arrested 1,001 feet from a
school.  Caught within the zone, you face a mandatory prison  sentence
of three years with no parole. Even a judge  can't change it. Outside
the zone, though, plea  bargains, probation, treatment and the like
are  much-used alternatives to incarceration.

Over the 18 years that law has been on the books, it  has gotten
results -- just not good ones. A greater  share of New Jersey inmates
- -- 33 percent -- is in  prison for drug-related crimes than in any
other state.  In 1986, only 11 percent of inmates in New Jersey were
incarcerated for drug-related offenses.

In 1986, inmates convicted of violent crimes accounted  for 61 percent
of the state's prison population,  compared to 40 percent today.

In 1986, 23 percent of whites and 22 percent of blacks  entering
prison were charged with drug offenses. But  today, 64 percent of New
Jersey's prisoners are black,  while the state's black population is
14.5 percent of  the total. And, over the past 20 years, spending in
New  Jersey on corrections -- building, maintaining and  staffing
prisons -- has risen by about 500 percent.

The bottom line is that the school-zone law and a  companion measure
that also sets a 1,000-foot zone  around parks, day care centers and
other facilities  where children are likely to be present have had a
disproportionate racial impact when it comes to  punishment for
relatively low-level, nonviolent  drug-related crimes.

To figure out why, just go to a city. In cities, it is  hard not to be
1,000 feet from a school or public  place. According to one report,
there is just a tiny  pocket of Hudson County near the Holland Tunnel
entrance that is not covered by the laws. But in  suburbs and rural
areas, it is fairly easy to be out of  range.

It's not as though the mandatory minimum sentencing law  was aimed at
minorities. The intent was to help protect  children from drugs. It
just goes about it in a  seriously ill-advised manner. Consider this:
A study by  the Boston University School of Public Health on a
similar law in Massachusetts found that fewer than 1  percent of the
people convicted of drug sales within a  school zone were selling to
minors or were even on  school property.

Fortunately, in New Jersey there is a vehicle for  restoring some
sanity to the process. The Commission to  Review Criminal Sentencing,
created in January 2004 by  then-Gov. James E. McGreevey, recently
recommended  establishing zones of 200 feet around schools and 500
feet in other areas covered by the law. Drug-dealing in  the covered
areas would be punishable with prison terms  of five to 10 years, but
without any mandatory minimum.

It's a win-win recommendation: protection for children  and discretion
for judges so that if they feel, for  example, that drug treatment
(which costs less and  often has better results) makes more sense than
time in  prison, they can make sure it happens.

Adopting this and other reforms would fit in with a  national trend
that has eluded New Jersey. Even New  York, which instituted some of
the nation's harshest  drug laws under Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, has
been  moving in the other direction. And, not long ago,  Pennsylvania
Gov. Edward Rendell signed a law aimed at  moving nonviolent drug
offenders more quickly into  treatment.

Reforming the get-tough laws of the past often is  uniting liberals
and conservatives. The moral qualms of  one group are merging with the
spending worries of the  other. As stated in a 2004 report by the Vera
Institute  of Justice, "Fiscal concerns are providing common  ground
- -- and a political safe haven -- for officials  of all political
stripes looking to temper reliance on  incarceration."

Whatever the motivation, let's welcome the effort. And  when
supporters of reform are attacked for being "soft  on crime," as they
are certain to be, stand up for  common sense.

- - Jon Shure is president of New Jersey Policy  Perspective, a nonprofit,
nonpartisan organization in  Trenton that conducts research on state
issues.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin