What are the Rockefeller Drug Laws?

The Rockefeller Drug Laws (RDLs) were enacted in 1973 (the NYCLU was one of the few organizations to oppose their passage), and were amended once, in 1979, but only to reduce the penalties for offenses involving marijuana.

• The RDLs require judges to impose harsh sentences for drug offenses regardless of the offender’s background or character, role in the offense, and what (if any) threat the offender poses to society. This rigid sentencing scheme restricts the ability of a judge to divert offenders, when appropriate, into drug treatment. The RDLS take away a judge’s discretion to weigh all the facts when sentencing drug offenders.
• Although the RDLs were intended to target drug “kingpins,” most offenders are incarcerated under these laws for possessing small amounts of drugs for their own use or for acting as low-level sellers or couriers.
• The mandatory sentence is based solely on the amount of the drug involved without any consideration of the offender’s level of participation in the offense. This means drug “mules” making one-time deliveries can receive the same sentence as kingpins in major drug distribution networks. Whether the person is a first-time or repeat offender is irrelevant.
• The harshest provision of the statute mandates a prison term of no less than 15 years to life for anyone convicted of selling 2 ounces or possessing 4 ounces of a narcotic substance.

Sources: Drug Policy Alliance website; Correctional Association of New York report, “Stupid and Irrational and Barbarous”: New York Judges Speak Against the Rockefeller Drug Law (December 2001).

How many people are currently serving RDL sentences?

There are more than 17,000 drug offenders locked up in New York State prisons, representing nearly 38 percent of the prison population.

• More than 33 percent of the drug offenders in New York State prisons (about 5,700 people) are serving sentences for drug possession, not sale, at a cost of over $180 million per year.
• Of all the drug offenders sent to NYS prison in 1999, nearly 80 percent were never convicted of a violent felony.
• Nearly 55 percent of these offenders were convicted of the lowest-level felonies—Class C, D, or E—which involve only minute drug amounts. For example, only ½ gram of cocaine is required for conviction of a Class D felony possession, and 1,331 people are locked up for that offense.

Source: New York State Department of Correctional Services, “Drug Commitments by Felony Class, Calendar Year 2003.”

How does New York State compare to other states?

New York State has the harshest sentencing scheme in the country for low-level drug sellers with a prior non-violent felony offense conviction. A nationwide survey reveals the following:

• As compared with other states that have large urban populations, (California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas) New York’s mandatory sentence for low level drug offenders – 4 ½ years -- is by far the harshest.
• When the accused has a prior non-violent felony conviction, thirty-two states allow automatic probation, 12 states allow for probation with certain qualifiers, while the remaining states mandate lesser minimum sentences than New York.

  Source: “Nationwide Survey of State Sentencing Options for a Low-Level Drug Seller With a Prior Non-Violent Felony Offense Conviction,” by the Office of David A. Patterson, New York State Senate Democratic Leader, March 2004.

  What is the racial impact of the RDLs?

  The RDLs as applied are racist.

• Levels of drug use are relatively consistent throughout the general population – that is, whites use and sell drugs about as frequently as non-whites. However, 94 percent of the drug offenders in New York State prisons are African-American or Latino. As of January 1, 2001, African-Americans comprised 51.3 percent of the drug offenders in state prison, Latinos 42.5 percent and whites 5.4 percent.
• Much of this discrepancy can be attributed to racial profiling. For example, a 1999 study of “stop and frisk” activity in New York City found that blacks were stopped 23 percent more often than whites, and Latinos 39 percent more often than whites – even after accounting for different crime rates in certain communities.
• Drug-law enforcement focuses almost exclusively on inner-city communities of color. In these communities drug transactions are more likely to take place in the streets and are therefore more likely to lead to arrests; whereas much of the drug activity among white people takes place behind closed doors.

Sources: NYS Department of Correctional Services; “Punishment and Prejudice: Racial disparities in the War On Drugs,” Human Rights Watch (May 2000); “The New York City Police Department’s ‘Stop & Frisk Prices: A Report from the Office of the Attorney General,” (December 1999).

How much money could New York save if the RDLs were reformed?

In 2003, the Legal Action Center released a report calculating the cost savings that could be realized by diverting second felony offenders from prison into drug treatment. The report focused on this category of offenders because they represent the vast majority of drug offenders incarcerated under the RDLs. The Center’s major findings were:

• 3,884 individuals incarcerated in 2001 would have been eligible for judicial diversion under the Assembly’s drug law reform bill.
• For every felony offender diverted from prison to community-based treatment, New York would save approximately $60,000 ($50,000 in total net criminal justice system-related savings, and $10,000 in savings in reducing health care and welfare costs and crime and increased tax contributions).
• New York would save an additional $24,384,000 by reducing the sentences of individuals serving certain drug offenses.
• Assuming that 60 percent of those eligible for judicial diversion actually would be sent to treatment instead of prison, passing the Assembly’s drug law reform bill would save New York taxpayers $164 million per year.

Source: “Cost Savings that Would Accrue to New York Under the Assembly’s Drug Law Reform Bill,” Legal Action Center.

What is the experience of states with drug treatment sentencing alternatives?

In the early 1990s, voters in Arizona approved an initiative to divert nonviolent defendants convicted of drug possession from prison into treatment. In 1996, the Arizona state legislature established the Drug Treatment and Education Fund to create a drug treatment program for offenders who would be diverted from prison under the Act. According to a March 1999 report from the Arizona Supreme Court it was found that:

• 2,622 drug offenders on probation participated in treatment under the program in its first year.
• There was a 61% percent success rate for the 932 probationers for whom treatment completion data was available.
• The program achieved a net saving of approximately $2.5 million in incarceration costs during its first year of implementation after subtracting treatment and probation costs.

In 2002, California voters passed Proposition 36, which allowed adults convicted of nonviolent drug crimes to be sentenced to probation with drug treatment instead of imprisonment. An audit issued after the first year of this diversion program showed:

• The “treatment-not-jails” law placed 30,469 people in treatment programs during its first year.
• About half of those offenders were getting treatment for the first time.
• Based on a $28,000 cost of incarceration, Proposition 36 saved the state an average of $10,640 per offender, totaling $399 million. Once treatments costs were subtracted, the state saved approximately $279 million.

Sources: “Poor Prescription: The Costs of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States,” Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (2000); Josh Richman, “Drug Treatment Law Gets High Marks,” Oakland Tribune, July 17, 2003.

Would drug treatment sentencing alternatives have positive results in New York State?

Yes. In fact, Governor Pataki has admitted as much. In October 2003 Pataki and Majority Leader Bruno announced a minimally funded “Road to Recovery Program for Non-Violent Drug Offenders to Reduce Recidivism.” They were responding to pressures to reform the RDLs and to an extremely positive evaluation of The Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program in Brooklyn, which enables alcohol or drug addicted defendants to enter a residential, therapeutic community treatment system as an alternative to a prison sentence.

The evaluation of DTAP by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University found that the program achieved significant results in reducing recidivism and drug use, increased the likelihood of finding employment, and saved money over the cost of incarceration. Diversion to the Road to Recovery program, like DTAP, is within the discretion of the District Attorney, not the judge, however.

Sources: “Governor Pataki and Majority Leader Bruno Launch Program to Reduce Drug Crimes,” press release, October 27, 2003; “Crossing the Bridge: An Evaluation of the Drug Treatment to Prison (DTAP) Program,” National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, March 2003.

Do harsh sentencing laws deter drug use?

No. States with higher rates of incarceration for drug offense actually report higher, not lower, rates of drug use. This finding is consistent with a 1997 study by the RAND Corporation which found that:

• Spending additional funds to provide treatment for heavy cocaine users would reduce drug consumption by nearly four times as much as spending the same amount on law enforcement, and more than seven times as much as spending the same amount on longer sentences.
• RAND estimated that treatment reduced drug-related crime as much as 15 times more than mandatory sentences.
• RAND concluded that: “Mandatory minimum sentences are not justifiable on the basis of cost-effectiveness at reducing cocaine consumption, cocaine expenditures, or drug-related crime.”

Sources: “Poor Prescription: The Costs of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States,” Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (2000); Caulkins, Rydell, Schwabe, and Chiesa, Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences: Throwing Away the Key or the Taxpayers' Money?, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, 1997.

Does the public support laws like the RDLs?

No. In March 2001 the ACLU released the findings of a national survey on crime, punishment, and over-incarceration. Among its major findings were:

• By a margin of 62 percent the public believes that alternatives to incarceration should be ordered more frequently for non-violent offenders.
• Three-quarters of Americans (74 percent) favor replacing prison sentences with mandatory drug treatment and probation for people convicted of non-violent drug use. Only two in ten (22 percent) oppose the treatment alternative.
• Six in ten Americans (61 percent) oppose mandatory prison sentences for nonviolent offenders.

In February 2002, the Open Society Institute announced the results of a similar national survey. The findings were virtually identical to the ACLU’s: By two to one, Americans describe drug abuse as a medical problem that should be addressed primarily through counseling and treatment (63 percent) rather than as a serious crime that should be handled by the courts and prison system (31 percent).

Sources: “Optimism, Pessimism, and Jailhouse Redemption: American Attitudes on Crime, Punishment, and Over-incarceration,” Findings from a National Survey Conducted for the ACLU by Belden Russonello & Stewart, March 2001; “Changing Public Attitudes toward the Criminal Justice System,” conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates for OSI, February 2002.

Printer-friendly Version