Unfortunately, after a careful review of the Felony Drug Law Reform Act of 2001 (the FDLRA) introduced in the New York Senate at the request of Governor George Pataki, Human Rights Watch has concluded that the Governor's proposed legislation fails to provide the reforms that are needed. The FDLRA retains many of the worst features of the Rockefeller laws: it keeps a structure of mandatory prison sentences; leaves low-level nonviolent offenders vulnerable to excessive sentences; and maintains the undue power of prosecutors over sentencing and diversion decisions. It creates new offenses subject to mandatory sentence provisions and arbitrarily increases sentences for certain predicate offenders.
1) Harsh Prison Sentences Retained for Possession or Sale of Small Quantities of Drugs
The FDLRA does create an important exception to the mandatory Class A-I sentences: if the prosecutor consents, the court would be able to sentence an A-I drug offender with no prior violent felony convictions as a Class B offender. (For reasons that are not clear, offenders convicted of Class A-II would not be eligible for this sentence reduction.) We endorse the apparent objective of avoiding overly harsh sentences for low-level drug offenders convicted of Class A-I felonies. But those intentions should have been pursued through elimination of the mandatory minimums or through a marked lowering of the sentencing range for Class A offenses. If a low sentence is appropriate for a minor offender convicted of a Class A offense, judges should have the power to impose it. As currently drafted, the FDLRA simply maintains the distortion in prosecutorial powers that is one of the principal flaws of the Rockefeller drug laws.
2) Mandatory Prison Sentences Retained for Class B and Lower Felonies The FDLRA retains mandatory sentences for these offenders. It would, however, replace the current indeterminate sentences with mandatory determinate sentences for both first time and repeat offenders. In most cases, the lowest possible sentence provided under the FDLRA would be slightly lower than the current minimum. The Act continues to deny judges their traditional role of determining just and proportionate sentences based on the facts of the case. For example, under the FDLRA, the minimum determinate sentence for a first-time offender convicted of a Class B offense (e.g., selling any quantity of cocaine, however small) would be fourteen months in prison, two months longer than the current lowest minimum sentence. The lowest determinate sentence permitted for a Class B second felony offender would be four years, six months shorter than the current lowest minimum sentence under current laws. The Act would institute longer sentences for second offenders whose prior felony was a violent crime. A second felony class B offender with a prior violent felony would face a mandatory sentence of at least six and one-half years.
3) Judges Still Denied Full Authority over Diversion to Drug Treatment The FDLRA seeks to increase the diversion of addicted offenders to substance abuse programs, an objective we endorse. Unfortunately, the proposed legislation makes prosecutors, rather than judges, the final arbiters of most diversion decisions. Under the FDLRA, prosecutors have control over whether Class B offenders, or second felony offenders charged with sales offenses, can be diverted to treatment instead of prison. Judges are only given full diversion discretion in the cases of offenders convicted of Class C, D or E drug possession felonies. In those cases, judges can impose a sentence of probation on an offender instead of prison, and can require participation in a drug treatment program as a condition of probation. The Act also unduly restricts judicial powers to supervise an offender's treatment progress. Recovery from addiction can be a long and difficult process that often includes relapses. If the offender is found to have violated any of the probation sentence conditions, for example, by using drugs, the court must revoke the probation and send him or her to prison, unless the prosecutor consents to revised terms of probation.
4) Creation of Overbroad New Class A Felony with Severe Mandatory Sentences Under the Act's provisions, a controlled substance organization can consist of as little as four people who decide to commit a one-time drug offense. There are no requirements that would narrow the targeted groups to those of a certain history or size (e.g., there are no criteria of prior criminal conduct or of a certain level of illegal profits nor even of a quantity of drug sales or purchases that would signify a substantial threat to public safety). A person is guilty of conducting the organization if he or she has a "supervisory position," defined as having responsibility for leading, organizing, directing or financing any aspect of its operation. Every member of a small group can be deemed to have a "supervisory position" if each has lead responsibility for a different aspect of the joint effort. No illegal act need be undertaken, as long as the organization has the goal of accomplishing the purchase or sale of drugs and at least one overt act (e.g., calling a meeting) is committed in furtherance of that agreement. If the intent is to undertake drug-related conduct that would be a Class A felony (e.g., the sale of two ounces of cocaine), then the mandatory minimum sentence for "conducting" the organization is fifteen years. If the intent is to engage in conduct that would constitute a Class B felony (e.g., the sale of any amount of cocaine, no matter how small), the mandatory minimum sentence is five years. If the offender has a prior conviction, even for a minor drug felony, the minimum term is ten years. The mandatory maximum term is life. In sum, the FDLRA threatens egregiously severe mandatory sentences for small time street dealers, who work with others to obtain and sell small amounts of drugs. If legislation is needed to ensure appropriate punishment for major drug traffickers, it should be crafted carefully so that it targets only those whose prior and current conduct unequivocally demonstrate a high level of responsibility for large-scale, dangerous drug organizations.
5) New Higher Mandatory Sentences for Offenses Committed Near Parks
6) Retroactivity
7) Higher Sentences for Marijuana Offenders |