Each Thursday, we put one of our local newsmakers On The Spot.
This week: Assemblyman Bob Oaks
This week's question: Critics say reforms to tough 1970s drug laws have not gone far enough. How should New York strike a balance between being too lenient in drug cases and giving long prison terms to non-violent drug offenders?
In 1973, New York enacted the Rockefeller Drug Laws as a strategy to get tough on crime and act as a deterrent to drug dealers and addicts. Since then, the state's sentencing structure for these offenders has been criticized as being unduly harsh and costly.
To help address these concerns, laws were enacted in 2004 and 2005 that significantly scaled back prison sentences. Despite this, proponents feel that these reforms did not go far enough and that additional changes should be made.
There was a perception prior to 2004 that first-time, “non-violent” drug offenders were filling state prisons, however, the vast majority of drug offenders in prison are there because they repeatedly sold drugs to make money, possessed large amounts of drugs intended for distribution or have prior convictions for violent crimes.
Statistics highlight the potential magnitude of the problem. In 2004, of the 16,345 drug offenders under custody, 80 percent of “non-violent” drug offenders had one or more prior felony convictions, 24 percent had one or more prior violent felony convictions and 44 percent had one or more prior prison sentences.
While I support diverting truly “nonviolent” drug offenders who are addicts into treatment, we must not lose the ability to use the threat of significant prison terms as a tool to send dangerous drug dealers to prison and require their attendance in substance abuse programs. State Legislature has provided various treatment programs for addicted drug offenders without undermining the seriousness of these drug offenses. In addition, drug courts are currently operating in all 62 counties to provide judicially supervised substance abuse treatment, drug testing and supportive services to drug offenders who have no history of violent crime in lieu of prison.
Even though I felt some changes to the Rockefeller Drug Laws were warranted, I did not vote for the bills to change these laws in 2004 and 2005 because I believed they contained too many loop holes for violent criminals to obtain early release.
Any additional efforts taken in Albany to change the Rockefeller Drug Laws should not have further unintended consequences of expediting the release of someone who will likely re-offend.
We should proceed with enforcing current law and providing drug treatment programs for addicted drug offenders who will benefit the most.
This week's question: Critics say reforms to tough 1970s drug laws have not gone far enough. How should New York strike a balance between being too lenient in drug cases and giving long prison terms to non-violent drug offenders?
In 1973, New York enacted the Rockefeller Drug Laws as a strategy to get tough on crime and act as a deterrent to drug dealers and addicts. Since then, the state's sentencing structure for these offenders has been criticized as being unduly harsh and costly.
To help address these concerns, laws were enacted in 2004 and 2005 that significantly scaled back prison sentences. Despite this, proponents feel that these reforms did not go far enough and that additional changes should be made.
There was a perception prior to 2004 that first-time, “non-violent” drug offenders were filling state prisons, however, the vast majority of drug offenders in prison are there because they repeatedly sold drugs to make money, possessed large amounts of drugs intended for distribution or have prior convictions for violent crimes.
Statistics highlight the potential magnitude of the problem. In 2004, of the 16,345 drug offenders under custody, 80 percent of “non-violent” drug offenders had one or more prior felony convictions, 24 percent had one or more prior violent felony convictions and 44 percent had one or more prior prison sentences.
While I support diverting truly “nonviolent” drug offenders who are addicts into treatment, we must not lose the ability to use the threat of significant prison terms as a tool to send dangerous drug dealers to prison and require their attendance in substance abuse programs. State Legislature has provided various treatment programs for addicted drug offenders without undermining the seriousness of these drug offenses. In addition, drug courts are currently operating in all 62 counties to provide judicially supervised substance abuse treatment, drug testing and supportive services to drug offenders who have no history of violent crime in lieu of prison.
Even though I felt some changes to the Rockefeller Drug Laws were warranted, I did not vote for the bills to change these laws in 2004 and 2005 because I believed they contained too many loop holes for violent criminals to obtain early release.
Any additional efforts taken in Albany to change the Rockefeller Drug Laws should not have further unintended consequences of expediting the release of someone who will likely re-offend.
We should proceed with enforcing current law and providing drug treatment programs for addicted drug offenders who will benefit the most.
The Citizens' Say
There are 2 comment(s)
forrest wrote on Jun 20, 2007 4:14 PM:
childofthekorn1318 wrote on Jun 17, 2007 12:24 PM: