The 2004 reform of NYS drug laws dealt with a sharp reduction in the lengths of the mandatory sentences in the most severe cases, doubling the threshold amounts of drugs that lead to these sentences, and allowing current inmates to petition for early release based upon the new sentencing structure. It did not reinstate judicial discretion that would allow placement of non-violent drug offenders in treatment programs upon their conviction, if deemed appropriate by the court. Nor did it establish the necessary funding to provide treatment as an alternative to or during incarceration. Incarcerating non-violent, drug abusers for long periods of time does not serve to enhance public safety, nor does it offer the most effective approach to rehabilitation and restoration.

The Rockefeller Laws have failed to achieve their goals. The intent of these laws was to eradicate the sale of illicit narcotics in our state’s communities. Unfortunately, despite state investments in a fivefold expansion of our state’s prison population, illicit drugs continue to be readily available. The Rockefeller Drug Laws were well intended but are out of touch with the understanding we now have of the nature of substance abuse. Public protection requires not just punishment, but rehabilitation and opportunities for offenders to re-integrate into society. Punishment must have a constructive and redemptive purpose.

Mandatory minimum sentences are not effective. A failure of the Rockefeller Drug Laws has been the inability to distinguish between addicted persons needing treatment and drug criminals preying on our children and communities. Mandatory minimum sentences force judges to impose excessive prison terms on low-level non-violent drug offenders and do not allow judges sufficient discretion to weigh the circumstances of the offense or the individual’s character or background. Consequently penalties may be handed down unjustly, and rehabilitation options (including drug treatment, education or job training) cannot be offered as an option even when they might be appropriate.

Addiction treatment is more effective than imprisonment. A recent RAND study indicates that treatment for offenders, as opposed to incarceration stemming from mandatory sentences, would be much more effective in reducing illicit drug consumption and would be ten to fifteen times more cost-effective in reducing drug-related crime. Yet a recent report from Columbia University’s Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) indicates that fewer than 25 percent of those inmates nationwide in need of substance abuse treatment receive it.

The Rockefeller Laws adversely affect families, particularly persons of color. Many of those incarcerated have been women exploited as drug mules. Two thirds of the women in state prisons are mothers of dependent children. Half of these children will commit a crime before the age of 18. Current laws require judges to separate families even if the individual is unlikely to receive treatment for an addiction and children are at the risk of entering foster care.

Our democracy cherishes the principle of equal treatment under the law, yet racial minorities are much more likely to be convicted of drug-related charges and presently are considerably less able to access treatment services. According to the Correctional Association of New York State, African Americans and Hispanics comprise more than 90 percent of drug offenders in New York State prisons. In addition, it is all too clear that having the means to access quality legal representation can affect both the legal outcome and the perception of the individual, in the community and in the criminal justice system.