Posted on 11/30/2001 7:30:30 AM PST by SocialMeltdown
The streets of our state are demonstrably safer today than they were as recently as five years ago. The dramatic reduction in violent crime in New York is, in large measure, due to the vigorous enforcement of the state's drug laws, often referred to as the "Rockefeller" drug laws. This is so because much of the violence we've experienced over the past decade is drug related. Drug dealers protect their "turf" using threats and violence. Drug dealers, because they have drugs and money, are robbery targets. Drug dealers retaliate for "rip-offs" with violence, in part because they can't go to the police for help. Drug dealers use threats and violence to collect drug debts and to intimidate witnesses. Drug addicts commit crimes, sometimes violent crimes, under the influence of drugs. The drug-violence connection is manifest.
Just as the impact of these laws is producing the desired results, there is a call in some quarters for "reform" of the "draconian" Rockefeller drug laws. Unfortunately, the reform movement is built on two myths. The first is that our prisons are filled with nonviolent drug addicts and, second, that judges are without discretion, forced to impose lengthy prison sentences by prosecutors who ignore the treatment option.
The fact is that the criminals in New York's prisons today are, overwhelmingly, those who have committed violent crimes, repeat felony offenders and the substantial drug dealers. In fact, many of the repeat felony offenders are sentenced to treatment rather than to prison when drug addiction appears to be at the root of the criminal conduct. We simply don't put addicts in prison for drug possession.
Those in prison for drug convictions are there because they sold drugs or were arrested because they had drugs to sell. Some may have been permitted to plead to lesser possession charges so that the sentencing options were moderated but, I repeat, we do not and are not imprisoning drug addicts just for possessing drugs.
What about treatment? The state's prosecutors have embraced the treatment option for nonviolent offenders whose involvement in the criminal system is a product of their addiction. It simply makes sense. If, through treatment, a person's life can be turned away from crime, it only makes sense that we do everything we can to see that successful treatment occurs.
Treatment professionals tell us, however, that addicts must be forced into accepting the treatment option. They tell us that it's only when the threat of consequences (e.g., prison) exists that an addict will find the incentive to remain in treatment.
Under existing drug laws, prosecutors have reached for the treatment option in a variety of ways for those nonviolent, addicted offenders who seem able to benefit from it. In fact, one of the most successful treatment programs in the nation is that established and run under the auspices of the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office. Prosecutors regularly use the Willard Drug Treatment option, shock incarceration ("boot camp") and probation-based rehabilitation programs to deal with addiction.
The state's prosecutors are integrally involved in the drug court movement, which, in the next several years, will be established in every county in the state.
All of this has happened in the context of the "draconian Rockefeller drug laws," which, as I've said, have been so important in helping reduce violent crime in our communities.
The state's 62 district attorneys are united in our opposition to the suggested dismantling of our drug laws. We do not oppose suggestions that would moderate the impact of the A-1 drug sentences (the most serious drug crimes, carrying minimum sentences of 15 to life), and we acknowledge the need for additional treatment resources.
Other suggestions or "reforms," however, present no "value added" on the treatment front and will, certainly, reduce our ability to deal with the violence that is so much a part of the drug business.
Every morning, I pick up full cans of un-pressurized whipped cream that have been depleted of their nitrous oxide propellant.
"Drug treatment" is a scam.
Your article also flatly states that there are no people incarcerated for simple possession. Though it might be true in the jurisdiction the article speaks of, it is very, very untrue nationwide.
A political 'is'm. If you define the level of possession down to very small amounts, any normal user who buys a little bit more to get a discount break becomes a dealer. Most of the drug user's I have known would buy for themselves and enough to split with some friends to hedge the costs. While I don't endorse drug usage, neither do I consider all of these folks actual drug dealers. None of them carry guns, and almost all didn't even own a gun (NYC remember). None engaged in any violence or attempted to push drugs onto any one who wasn't already interested in them. Most of them were younger folk, but some were married with children.
This is how easy it was to get into bars in Buffalo if you were underage. I had a friend who was chinese. He had a BLACK GUYS drivers license for his fake ID. He NEVER got turned away, not once!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.