DLRADrug Law Reform Act
DLRADry Lakes Racers Australia
DLRADepartment of Lands and Rural Affairs (Australia)
DLRADirt Legends Racing Association
DLRADetailed Level Risk Assessment
DLRADistance Learning Readiness Assessment
DLRAData Link Receiver Assembly
DLRADarts Liga Region Aargau
DLRADorset Residential Landlords Association (UK)
DLRADigital Library Research Assistant
DLRAdye laser resonance absorption
DLRAdual luciferase reporter assay
DLRADarcy Lever Residents Association
DLRADivision of Regulatory and Legal Affairs
DLRADorset Lake Residents' Association (UK)
References in periodicals archive ?
129) The Appellate Division, Second Department found that the DLRA eligibility requirements of correction law section 803(1)(d) do not preclude an inmate, from whom merit time has been withheld, from seeking resentencing if he was eligible for merit time according to [section]803(1)(d)(ii).
According to the New York State Senate's memorandum in support of the 2005 DLRA, the Act was designed to extend resentencing to those A-II felony offenders who are
The confusion and varying interpretations of the 2005 DLRA amount to resentencing being withheld from even more inmates sentenced under the old laws.
143) Resentencing, however, is only half of the story since that provision of the DLRA applied retroactively.
The testimony developed along one common theme: The DLRA was incomplete and more reform was necessary in order to actually ameliorate the harshness of the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
The first problem cited with the DLRA was its minimal impact on those most affected by the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
Furthermore, the incomplete modification displayed that the DLRA was nothing more than an appeasement of those who made efforts to move toward reform.
Consequently, the DLRA of 2004 and 2005 did not reduce the amount of drug-related offenders going to prison, but rather changed the offenses for which they were sent to prison and the amount of time they spent in prison.
The second area of concern that the DLRA of 2004 and 2005 failed to address was the broad discretion vested in the executive branch.
Furthermore, although the DOCS reported that seventy-two percent of inmates are self-identified substances abusers, (167) the DOCS was reluctant to implement the DLRA in terms of admitting all inmates in need of treatment into the Comprehensive Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment Program ("CASAT").
These two examples illustrate that the DOCS was reluctant to properly apply the reforms implemented by the DLRA of 2004 and 2005, and that DOCS was able to do so due to its vast power over the correctional system.
The third and final major issue that the DLRA of 2004 and 2005 failed to address was the lack of a statewide reintegration program for those newly released from prison.