Resentencing after the "Fall" of Rockefeller: The Failure of the Drug Law Reform Acts of 2004 and 2005 to Remedy the Injustices of New York's Rockefeller Drug Laws and the Compromise of 2009
2010; Albany Law School; Volume: 73; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
0002-4678
Autores Tópico(s)Torture, Ethics, and Law
ResumoInsanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results. --Rita Mae Brown (2) I. INTRODUCTION Vice is defined as evil, degrading, or immoral practice or habit. (3) With the proper treatment, however, habits may be broken. For thirty-six years New York's drug legislation attempted to break the habits of its constituents through the process of incarceration. This ideology resulted in thousands of disproportionate sentences for non-violent crimes. It all began in 1973 when Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller signed into law a large-scale drug reform. (4) The drastically changed the prior drug laws by systematically classifying illicit drugs into categories of varying offenses and punishment. (5) The signature of this was the mandatory maximum of life imprisonment required by the commission of a class A felony. (6) These draconian reforms became known around the nation as The Rockefeller Drug Laws. (7) Over the next three decades the prison population in New York State grew exponentially from ten thousand to seventy thousand inmates, with almost a third of those inmates incarcerated for drug offenses. (8) Although the penalties were steep, they did little to deter drug use and drug crimes. (9) By the early 2000s, it was clear that this method was unsuccessful and that was needed. (10) In 2004, Governor Pataki signed into legislation the Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA) of 2004, which increased the quantity of drugs necessary to classify as a class A felony and decreased the prison terms for these crimes. (11) Most notably, no longer were life sentences available for any drug offense. (12) Recognizing the injustices produced by the Rockefeller Drug Laws, the 2004 DLRA provided for special retroactive relief that allowed inmates serving life sentences under the old laws for committing A-I felonies to petition the courts to be resentenced. (13) Soon thereafter, the 2005 DLRA was signed into legislation to extend resentencing to A-II felony offenders.In Although at first blush the DLRAs appeared to be ameliorative legislation that would rectify the injustices of the Rockefeller Drug Laws, the story was not so simple. Weaved into the language of the DLRAs were limitations, obstacles, and restrictions that made resentencing impossible to some inmates and burdensome to the rest. Moreover, the resentencing provision was the extent of the legislative reform to New York's harsh drug laws. Although the sentencing structure was revised, the of 2004 and 2005 did not attempt to change the philosophy used to battle the drug problem. Instead of finding solutions to prevent drug-related violence, the legislature continued to mask the problem behind bars and bricks. It was not until 2009 that a solution was finally proposed. The success of this solution, however, remains to be seen. Part II of this note provides an overview of the history and reforms of the New York State drug laws. Part III dissects the reforms of the DLRAs of 2004 and 2005 and shows why they failed to result in any meaningful change. Part IV explains the movement for further reform--from multiple vantage points--as well as the various proposals for a workable solution. Finally, Part V describes the legislative compromise that resulted in the DLRA of 2009 and assesses the likely effects of the recent revisions. I. THE ROCKEFELLER DRUG LAWS A. The Governor's New Project Prior to 1965, the drug laws in New York State were confusing and unsystematic. (15) The sanctions for different drug offenses were found in completely different statutes of the former penal law, and separate crimes were attached to each drug classification. (16) In 1965, New York revised the drug laws by classifying all drugs under the term controlled substances, and creating two basic offenses: criminal possession and criminal sale. (17) The new system defined each drug according to the public health law schedule (18) and punished the offense under the appropriate correction law provision. …
Referência(s)