NCJ Number
142640
Date Published
1992
Length
28 pages
Annotation
New York City's Criminal Justice Agency conducted a study to determine how the D-felony crack law that went into effect in November 1988 affected the processing of crack cases in New York City courts.
Abstract
The 1988 law reduced the amount of cocaine constituting felony possession from 0.5 ounce to 500 milligrams. Prior to November 1988, the law required possession of approximately 20 vials or more of cocaine to qualify an arrest as a felony. Under the new law, persons arrested with six or more vials can be charged with a D-felony offense, the second lowest felony offense. To evaluate the law's effect, three groups of cases were examined. The first group consisted of 1,322 arrests containing D-felony crack charges in the 3 months following the start of the law in November 1988 through January 1989. Two comparison groups were chosen to permit an evaluation of the new law's effects. One consisted of 750 arrests that included A-misdemeanor crack charges that would have been considered D-felony crack charges under the new law for January through March 1988. The other included 437 arrests that had noncrack D-felony drug charges, also from the first 3 months of the new law period. It was found that the new D-felony legislation lowered the threshold amount of cocaine subject to felony charges and increased penalties for those possessing small amounts of crack cocaine. Further, the legislation signaled the courts to take such acts more seriously and to scrutinize defendants more carefully. Release conditions set for defendants were more stringent in D-felony crack cases than for defendants in either A-misdemeanor crack or D-felony noncrack drug cases. Charges were reduced more frequently and rates of dismissal were higher for D-felony crack cases. D-felony cases took longer to process in criminal court than the other case types, and rates of incarceration were higher for D-felony crack cases. In sum, postlaw crack cases received tougher treatment in criminal court than prelaw cases, but this tougher treatment was at the expense of increased burdens on the court and correctional systems. 7 references, 7 notes, and 6 figures