[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 28766]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  ENDORSING THE CALL FOR FAIR, COMPREHENSIVE SENTENCING REFORM IN NEW 
                                  YORK

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, October 30, 2007

  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to add my voice to the many 
urging New York State--and the country, at large--to reform its 
sentencing. The New York Times editorial, ``Rational Sentencing,'' 
published October 25, 2007, takes up that challenge, forcefully arguing 
that draconian measures enacted over 30 years ago have done nothing to 
curb drug use. They have, however, maintained an inflated prison 
population, hamstrung the discretions of judges, and burdened the state 
with exorbitant cost. A failed system demands creative solutions--and 
it demands that they come speedily.
  It is incumbent upon the state to empower judges and end 
indeterminate sentencing that allows them to set minimums and maximums 
but little else. It should deal with nonviolent offenders in a 
sensible, compassionate manner, offering community-based treatment in 
lieu of jail time. It should restore prison-based education and 
training programs, ridding jails of their revolving-door culture and 
arming inmates with marketable skills. It should create a permanent and 
independent sentencing commission tasked with advising legislators, so 
that we may never again devolve into an unfair system.
  After decades fraught with injustice, smart and widespread reform is 
long overdue.


                          RATIONAL SENTENCING

  New York sparked a disastrous national trend during the 1970s with 
laws that often penalized first-time drug felons more severely than 
rapists or murderers. Imitated throughout the country, New York's so-
called Rockefeller laws drove up the prison population tenfold and cost 
the states a fortune, but did nothing to curb the drug trade. Worse 
still, they tied the hands of judges and destroyed countless young 
lives--by requiring long prison terms in cases where leniency and drug 
treatment were clearly warranted.
  New York has made incremental changes to the Rockefeller laws in 
recent years, but has stopped short of restoring judicial discretion. 
Governor Eliot Spitzer seemed to be pushing in that direction this year 
when he appointed a commission to study the range of state sentencing 
practices.
  The commission's preliminary report contains many valuable 
recommendations for fixing the sentencing system as a whole. But the 
superficial treatment given the Rockefeller laws has raised fears among 
fair-sentencing advocates that the commission intends to duck the issue 
in its final report, due next spring. That cannot be allowed to happen. 
Voters deserve a thorough airing of this issue and a full menu of 
options for reforming the most draconian drug laws the country has yet 
seen.
  The report rightly calls for ending New York's byzantine system of 
``indeterminate sentencing,'' under which a judge imposes a minimum and 
a maximum sentence and the Parole Board decides when to release an 
offender. It calls for sentencing certain nonviolent offenders to 
community-based treatment instead of prison. It also recommends 
restoring prison-based educational and training programs, which have 
been shown to cut recidivism by giving inmates marketable skills.
  Most important, the report calls for the State to establish a 
permanent, independent sentencing commission to advise legislators. 
Already working in several states, such commissions have independence 
and statutory authority. At their best, they help legislatures make 
rational decisions and avoid disastrous policies that have failed 
elsewhere, like New York.

                          ____________________