Fact sheet

In 1973, New York State began enactment of the most stringent sentencing statutes in the nation, which are now commonly referred to as the Rockefeller Drug Laws.  In December of 2004 a major step toward reform of these laws was agreed to and signed into law.  The reform dealt with a sharp reduction in the lengths of the mandatory sentences in the most severe cases, doubling the threshold amounts of drugs that lead to these sentences, and allowing current inmates to petition for early release based upon the new sentencing structure.  Although this reform is significant there is still more that needs to be done.  It did not reinstate judicial discretion that would allow placement of non-violent drug offenders in treatment programs upon their conviction, if deemed appropriate by the court.  Nor did it establish the necessary funding to provide treatment as an alternative to or during incarceration.  Incarcerating non-violent, drug abusers for long periods of time does not serve to enhance public safety, nor does it offer the most effective approach to rehabilitation and restoration.

Conference Position

New York State’s drug sentencing laws must be modified to permit greater judicial discretion in considering the circumstances and disposition of drug offenses.  Mandatory sentences regardless of the length of the sentence will lead to the incarceration of individuals that may be better served by placement in treatment.  Their placement in treatment also better serves the society by creating a greater likelihood of returning individuals to productivity.  We also seek increased state resources dedicated for alternative sentencing treatment and addiction treatment programs in prisons and in our communities.

Rationale

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

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

A large number of non-violent offenders enter the already overcrowded prison system each year. Since the Rockefeller-era drug laws were enacted, drug commitments to the State Department of Correction have risen from fewer than 1,000 to over 10,000 per year.  Nearly 80 percent of the drug offenders sentenced to NYS prison in 1997 had never been convicted of a violent felony and almost half had never been arrested for a violent crime.

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

Resources could be better spent on community-based rehabilitation.  The Department of Correction currently spends $32,000 per inmate per year to incarcerate these individuals.  These resources, currently allocated to the prison system, divert support from community-based treatment programs.  Columbia University’s CASA also reports that investing in proven treatment for inmates (coupled with appropriate education, job training and health care) could yield tremendous benefits.  Nationwide, treatment costs an average of $6,500, and would provide an annual economic benefit to society of $68,800—a tenfold return on investment—in terms of avoided incarceration costs, as well as wages earned and taxes paid by former offenders.

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

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

~adapted from statement of NY Conference of Catholic Bishops