The Rockefeller Drug reform movement argued its case for reform by using people convicted of violent crimes, stating that people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses were being sentenced to the same amount of time if not more than people convicted of homicide-related cases. One should note that many of the people sentenced to 15 years to life or more under the Rockefeller Drug Laws refused plea bargains with significantly lower sentences. I know an individual who sold drugs at his college campus to undercover cops. He was released on bail and went right back to campus and sold drugs to other undercover cops. He was offered a plea bargain of 2 to 4 years for both crimes but refused to take the plea. He went to trial, was convicted, and sentenced to 15 years to life. He ended up serving 13 years. Now the real issue here was how he was prosecuted. The prosecution, in offering him that plea of 2 to 4 years, was admitting that for his crime he should serve no more than 4 years. How did he end up with a 15-year minimum sentence? That’s the problem. Instead, the Rockefeller Drug reform movement compared apples and oranges. It should have went after the prosecutors, and a system that unconstitutionally increased sentences for people who exercised their Constitutional right to go to trial. Needless to say, those most vociferously opposed to Rockefeller Drug Laws reform were prosecutors.