Quantcast

Prisoner on Rockefeller Drug Law Reform: The Beast is Being Created

The state District Attorneys Association, having failed to convince Albany that reforming the Rockefeller Drug Laws was a bad idea, is employing a novel tactic in their attempt to keep upstate prisons stocked with convicts: Let the real experts on incarceration speak! They've released an audio recording (below) of a prison inmate with "a 27 page long rap sheet" talking about the reforms on the phone. The DAs think the recording will prove that offering drug treatment instead of prison will be exploited by criminals like this unidentified man, who derides the new reforms as the "Drug Dealers Protection Law... They just gave me the free for all. You know what that means? I'm burning the streets when I go home."

Holy smokes, did you hear that part at the end? "The Beast is being created!" And it will rise out of the sea, having seven heads and 10 horns, and thousands of crack vials to get all your children hooked on the drugs! After hearing this expert testimony, it's obvious we need to lock up anyone caught with drugs forever, or at least until after the Apocalypse. Or do we? Jennifer Carnig at the NYCLU tells us that this inmate is shockingly misinformed, particularly when he insists "they got to prove you make over $50,000 a year, and they said that's hard to prove with no financial records." Below, the NYCLU response:

With regard to the $50,000 claim, that is patently wrong. The Rockefeller reform legislation creates a NEW crime of “Operating as a Major Trafficker.” In order to be found guilty of this NEW, very serious offense, a person must, among other things, be shown to have profited from a drug deal in the amount of $75,000. Nothing in the reform bill exempts any other offense related to selling drugs based on how much someone can be shown to have made as profit.

With regard to the claims about how easy it is to get treatment instead of incarceration, this is what the law provides:

1. Judicial diversion (treatment instead of incarceration) is available to those who are charged with a B-level drug-related offense or below, UNLESS: within preceding 10 years (excluding any time spent incarcerated), the person was convicted of a

  • violent felony offense

  • any other offense where merit time is not allowed (those convicted of sex offenses and non-drug A1 felons); OR

  • previously adjudicated a second violent felony offender; OR

  • if a violent felony offense is pending.

1. Someone who is eligible for consideration for judicial diversion must be assessed as having a substance abuse disorder. In order to determine this, the person must submit to an “Alcohol and substance abuse evaluation” which is a written assessment and report by a court-appointed entity or licensed health care professional experienced in the treatment of alcohol or substance abuse or by OASAS-certified counselor (CASAC), including:

  • an evaluation of history of substance abuse or alcohol or substance dependence in accordance with DSM IV and co-occurring mental disorder or mental illness if any;
  • a recommendation as to whether a substance abuse dependence could be effectively addressed by judicial diversion;
  • a recommendation of treatment modality; level of care, length of proposed treatment time; and

  • any other information deemed to be relevant.

What this means is that treatment instead of incarceration is only available to low-level, non violent offenders. If you’ve got a violent felony in your past, you are not going to be eligible for diversion under this law. Someone who is eligible for consideration for judicial diversion must be assessed as having a substance abuse disorder, and that’s a careful, deliberative decision made by a licensed professional.

DAs have a say in this process and can request a hearing before a defendant is diverted. The law requires that the hearing include an examination of the defendant’s entire criminal history and statements by any victims. In order to divert someone from prison to treatment, the court has to determine that jail time is not necessary to protect public safety.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Comments [rss]

  • JacqueMehoff

    I guess,

    whatcha gonna do when you get out of Jail?

    I'm gonna have some fun.

    what do you consider fun is not hard enough.

  • slappy

    The whole prison system needs to be reformed.

    And those Rock drug laws are a travesty.

  • Fritzdecat

    I am not a number I am a free man...

  • ANGRYGOD11

    YOU ARE NUMBER 10

  • pissflaps
  • JacqueMehoff

    I'm surprised he didn't say "son" at the end.

    am I showing my age?

  • Huffy6241

    "You are number Six!"

  • cmdrogogov

    Hey, how about decriminalization and setting up an actual legal entity to control and inspect distribution and production?



    No, I guess negating most of the medical issues resulting from adulterated drugs, putting criminals and organized crime groups out of business, funding an effective health system with taxes levied on the products and allowing people to actually have some good clean fun without the gestapo looking over their should would make a little too much sense, wouldn't it?

  • hotstepper

    fuck nelson rockefeller. his "reforms" contribute immensely to our bloated taxes in NYS. prisons are an industry supported by oppressive drug laws.

  • ANGRYGOD11

    The very men who wrote the Rockefeller Laws had the best of intentions of using long sentences to destroy drug organizations from the bottom up in a few years. Remember, heroin usage and crime skyrocketed at the time.

    They are still around, retired and have the decency to publicly acknowledge the idea failed big time. They didn't want the prisons filled with small fry.

  • hotstepper

    their intentions are irrelevant. mandatory minimum sentences do imprison the "small fry" at an alarming rate and ever-increasing cost to the taxpayers. when small fry hits the streets he gets right back on the smack/crack more often than not. punishment does not work, the change toward a productive life must happen within the individual...treatment NOT incarceration.

  • ANGRYGOD11

    Intentions DO matter. Policy makers are trying to do something with limited resources. I'm likely to agree with you about treatment, but the writers of these laws might not have believed or known about that option in the early 1970's.

    The results are a disaster, but unlike the idiots who approved Prohibition, it's not likely these guys ever used coke nor heroin. They were ignorant and at least they are willing to say so.

    BTW, the new changes assume all street drug dealers have a drug problem. What do you do with the ones who don't use and just want to make quick money?

  • nicemarmot

    Wow, you mean we can't trust prisoners to explain our new laws to us?

blog comments powered by Disqus

send a tip

tips@gothamist.com