The AWEARNESS Blog provides daily updates under four
socially-aware pillars of discussion: Social Rights, Well-Being, Political
Landscape and Hard Times.
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhYUZ5o9dx8
Anthony Papa interview on RNN /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
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=81357
|
Politics
|
|
|
|
|
State Assembly Reexamines Drug Policy
 |
|
May
08, 2008
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.
|
Regional News Network (RNN
TV)
Rockefeller Drug Laws:
Marking 35 Years
Interview with Anthony Papa:
Rockefeller Drug Laws: Marking 35 Years
Capital News 9
www.capitalnews9.com
Re-examining Rockefeller drug laws
Updated: 05/08/2008
09:08 PM
By: Josh Robin
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.
Copyright ©2007 TWEAN News Channel of Albany, L.L.C d.b.a. Capital News 9
http://www.empirestatenews.net/News/20080509-6.html
|
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.
|
|
|
Newsday.com
Views vary at hearing on state drug laws
BY
ZACHARY R. DOWDY
zachary.dowdy@newsday.com
May
9, 2008
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.
Copyright © 2008,
Newsday Inc.
HOY Nueva York
Contra Ley Rockefeller
Piden tratamiento médico a cambio de una celda
Alexandra Ochoa / Alexandra.ochoa@hoynyc.com |
2008-05-09
|Hoy
Nueva York
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!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-papa/anti-drug-task-force-fund_b_99219.html
Huffington Post
by Anthony Papa
Anti-Drug Task Force Funding Leads to Police Corruption and Destruction of
Lives
Posted April 29, 2008
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.
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?
_____________________
Flash: March 28, 2008
http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080328/NEWS01/803280350/1002/NEWS01
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.
dosburn@nycap.rr.com
Flash: march 5, 2008 :russell simmons
might finish what he started in 2003
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=79139
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)
by Anthony
Papa
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.
h
http://timesunion.com/TUNews/author/AuthorPage.aspx?AuthorNum=58
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.
__________________________
New York Daily News
The Daily Politics
Spitzer = Scrooge? (Updated)
By Elizabeth Benjamin
December 28, 2007
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 <
http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/anothervoice/story/238256.html>
, a drug-offender-turned-activist who was granted clemency by former Gov. George
Pataki in 1996.
"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."
Spitzer did grant a single pardon this year <
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2007/12/spitzers-christmas-pardon.html>
to Frederick Lake, a Brooklyn man who faced deportation back to his native
Jamaica due to his criminal record. The governor stressed that he had acted in
this case in the interest of preventing Lake from being forced to return home -
not because he believed Lake’s claim of innocence, thereby injecting himself
into an immigration debate (which didn’t work so well the last time <http://gothamist.com/2007/11/14/steamrolled_spi.php>
).
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.
1990 1 1991 2 1992 2 1993 2 1994 4 1995 2 1996 7 1997 4 1998 0 1999 5 2000 5
2001 3 2002 4 2003 1 2004 0 2005 1 2006 0
The above are all commutation of sentence
2003 1 posthumous pardon (use of foul language in a public forum, given to
comedian Lenny Bruce by former Gov. George Pataki).
_________________________
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/29/opinion/lweb29pardon.html?ref=opinion
The New York Times
A Lone Pardon This Year
By Anthony Papa December 29, 2007
To the Editor:
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.
_________________________
http://www.buffalonews.com/149/story/238256.html
Another Voice / Drug laws
Spitzer could recoup with an act of
compassion
By Anthony Papa
Updated: 12/28/07 6:55 AM
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
Letters to the editor
December 14 2007
A first change in drug sentencing
Re "Justices OK latitude on sentencing," Dec. 11
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.
Anthony Papa
Communications Specialist
Drug Policy Alliance
New York
12/11/07
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=446&Itemid=1
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."
This article previously appeared in
Counterpunch.
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.org
This e-mail address is being
protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
____________
http://www.chicagosportsreview.com/inthemeantime/contentview.asp?c=204651
http://www.blackathlete.net/artman2/publish/Commentary_1/Barry_Bonds_And_The_Drug_War.shtml
Barry
Bonds And The Drug War
A Different Look At The BALCO
Scandalby Anthony Papa, tpapa@drugpolicy.org
POSTED: Nov 27, 2007
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 ...
http://www.nysun.com/article/65937
'Isn't It Ironic, Don't You Think?'
BY ANTHONY PAPA
November 6, 2007
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
by Patricia Willens
http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/88822
Commission
Urges Lawmakers to Appeal Sentencing Laws
by Patricia Willens
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.
Reach Cara Matthews at clmatthe@gannett.com
____________________
http://www.counterpunch.org/papa09252007.html
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/63662/
Will Drug Lord Do Less Time Than the Average American
Nonviolent Drug Offender?
By
Anthony Papa,
AlterNet. Posted
September 27, 2007.
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.
http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Group_wants_Rockefeller_law_reforms/9833.html
Metro
New York
Group wants Rockefeller law
reforms
by amy zimmer / metro new
york AUG 29, 2007
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.
CLMATTHE@Gannett.com
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=615894
 |
| |
| |
|
Justice reform should begin with drug laws
|
| |
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.
|
|
|
·
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1653862,00.html
Friday, Aug. 17, 2007
Mandatory Sentencing: Stalled Reform
By Madison Gray/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."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-papa/country-in-distress-the-_b_59865.html
By
Anthony Papa
August 9, 2007
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.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007708010304
Wednesday,
August 01, 2007
Opinion
Drug
treatment isn't a silver bullet
Anthony Papa
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
Newsday
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppap305275288jun30,0,7254904.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines
Paris'
jail lessons could lead to helping others
BY ANTHONY PAPA
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.
Copyright
2007 Newsday Inc.
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=590779
Set free prison
politics in New York state
By ANTHONY PAPA
Monday, May 21,
2007
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."
http://www.counterpunch.org/papa06192007.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-papa/a-dying-wish-to-governor-_b_53019.html
Posted June 20, 2007
| 02:04 PM (EST)
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, 2007 New Rockefeller Drug Law Song on UTube
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=2030786088
Flash! Rock Law Survivor Veronica Flournoy speaks out against
Governor Spitzer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g4uX7pObrY&eurl=
“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
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/485/turning_up_pressure_rockefeller_drug_law_reform_new_york
Feature: Turning Up the Heat on New York's
Rockefeller Drug Laws (and the Politicians Who Fail to Fix Them)
Printer
Friendly Version
Email
this Article
from Drug War Chronicle,
Issue #485, 5/11/07
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.
________________________________________
© 2007
blackandbrownnews.com.
NY State Top Pols Play ‘Silent Sam’ On REAL Drug Law Reform.
May 13, 2007 by Anthony Papa, Writer (View
Source)
_________________
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5249/1/258/
Governor Spitzer: Hip Hop Is Calling You Out!
By
Anthony Papa |
|
|
|
5-09-07
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!
http://www.counterpunch.org/papa05052007.html
Weekend Edition
May 5 / 6, 2007
34 Years of Rockefeller Drug
Laws
Spitzer, Cuomo and Paterson:
Where Did You Go?
By ANTHONY PAPA
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.
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:
www.15yearstolife.com/art1.htm
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=584144&category=OPINION&newsdate=4/26/2007
|
Spitzer must lead drug law
reform
|
| |
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.
|
|
|
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n514/a02.html
Newshawk: Drug Policy Alliance
www.drugpolicy.org
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Sun, 22 Apr 2007
Source: Newsday (NY)
Copyright: 2007 Newsday Inc.
Contact:
letters@newsday.com
Website:
http://www.newsday.com/
Details:
http://www.mapinc.org/media/308
Author: Anthony Papa
SPITZER RIGHT ON PRISON-CALL FEES
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
http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070419/NEWS01/704190373/1002
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."
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:
www.15yearstolife.com/art1.htm
For more info contact
Hispanics Across America -- 212-481-1820.
US NY: PUB LTE: The War on Drugs, Now in Schools
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n428/a02.html
Newshawk: Drug Testing Fails Our Youth
www.drugtestingfails.org
Votes:
0
Pubdate: Sun, 01 Apr 2007
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2007 The New York Times Company
Contact:
letters@nytimes.com
Website:
http://www.nytimes.com/
Details:
http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Referenced:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n377/a09.html
Author: Anthony Papa
THE WAR ON DRUGS, NOW IN SCHOOLS
To the Editor:
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.
|
http://www.counterpunch.org/papa03242007.html
Weekend Edition
March 24 / 25, 2007
Bong Hits 4 Jesus!
Students on the Drug War's
Front Lines
By ANTHONY PAPA
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.
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
|
Online at: http://politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/4996/1/247/ |
Archives
- Dates and Topics Online
Edition Archive Mar.
12 – Mar. 18
click here for related
stories: Racism, civil rights and equality
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.
US NY: PUB LTE: Spitzer's Prison Fight
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n215/a06.html
Newshawk: Tony Papa
www.drugpolicy.org
Votes:
0
Pubdate: Sun, 18 Feb 2007
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2007 The New York Times Company
Contact:
letters@nytimes.com
Website:
http://www.nytimes.com/
Details:
http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Referenced:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n000/a020.html
Author: Anthony Papa
SPITZER'S PRISON FIGHT
To the Editor:
"A Battle Over Prisons" ( editorial, Feb. 12 ):
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.
Manhattan
US FL: PUB LTE: Control Through Hype
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n1658/a08.html
Newshawk:
http://www.november.org
Votes:
0
Pubdate: Mon, 04 Dec 2006
Source: Orlando Sentinel (FL)
Copyright: 2006 Orlando Sentinel
Contact:
insight@orlandosentinel.com
Website:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/
Details:
http://www.mapinc.org/media/325
Referenced:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n1638/a02.html
Author: Anthony Papa
CONTROL THROUGH HYPE
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."
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.
laura.italiano@nypost.com
Flash!
September 26, 2006
"Have a Cold? Prove It, Then Sign Here"
http://www.counterpunch.org/papa09262006.html
The Danger of
Methamphetime Registries
By ANTHONY PAPA
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.
Additional
reporting by Brian Hamacher
brad.hamilton@nypost.com
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]
______________________
Tallahassee Democrat
http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20060715/OPINION05/607150311/1006/OPINION
Flash! July 15, 2006
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
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n1092/a04.html
Newshawk: Drug Policy Alliance
www.drugpolicy.org
Votes: 1
Pubdate: Sun, 13 Aug 2006
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2006 The New York Times Company
Contact:
letters@nytimes.com
Website:
http://www.nytimes.com/
Details:
http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Referenced:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n942/a04.html
Author: Anthony Papa
DON'T MISUSE THE LAW TO PUNISH KINGPINS
To the Editor:
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.
|
|
-----------------
Flash!
May 15, 2005 David Soares American Hero!
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,
