House Judiciary hears competing testimony on SB 2128 'truth in sentencing' proposal

The House Judiciary Committee on Oct. 12 heard more than three hours of testimony on Senate Bill 2128, a proposal the attorney general described as a “truth in sentencing” package that would require some convicted violent offenders, drug traffickers and other specified offenders to serve a larger share of a judge’s sentence before being eligible for parole.

Attorney General Drew Wrigley told the committee the measure is not about increasing maximum sentences but about enforcing the “sanctity of a judicial order” and ensuring that judges’ determinations carry through to actual time served. “This legislation isn't about the length of sentences. It's about the sanctity of a judicial order that comes at the conclusion of a criminal matter,” Wrigley said.

Wrigley and several county prosecutors told the committee they made the bill a priority after reviewing cases in which people convicted of serious offenses served only a small fraction of their court-ordered sentences and later committed new crimes. Wrigley and proponents urged the committee to require that qualifying offenders serve 50% of the court sentence before being considered for parole; if parole is denied, an offender would serve up to 85% of the original sentence with up to 15% available as good time, according to materials and testimony presented to the committee.

Why it matters: Supporters said recent case reviews and local anecdotes show a pattern of early transfers to unsecure transitional settings and recidivism by people sentenced for serious crimes. Opponents warned the bill would remove incentives for programming inside prisons, sharply increase state correctional costs and worsen staff and public safety by expanding the prison population without expanding rehabilitative capacity.

What supporters said

Wrigley cited a decade-long rise in violent crime in North Dakota and told lawmakers the public has learned the state’s prisons and reentry system frequently result in substantial reductions from judicial sentences. He described a prospective minimum 50% rule for parole eligibility as “modest” and said it would restore public confidence that judicial sentences have effect.

Local prosecutors and detectives gave the committee case examples they said illustrated the problem. Dennis Ingold, senior assistant state's attorney for Burleigh County, described trafficking cases and other prosecutions in which defendants served a fraction of imposed terms before transfer to community-based settings. Detective Christopher Heward of the Wahpeton Police Department said the bill balances rehabilitation for low-risk people with stronger, mandatory consequences for violent acts and fleeing law enforcement.

What opponents said

Colby Braun, director of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOCR), testified in opposition. Braun said the bill would “shut the door on the investments in rehabilitation and redemption that are proven to make our communities safer,” and warned the measure would remove incentives that encourage incarcerated people to pursue programming. He said the measure would also force DOCR to house many more people in secure facilities and predicted higher misconduct and violence in prisons if people lose hope and programming opportunities.

DOCR and other witnesses disputed several of the factual premises advanced by proponents. Braun said transitional centers and community-based placements reduce violence and recidivism and cautioned that removing those options would raise costs and staff risk. DOCR’s director described a fiscal estimate the department provided to lawmakers indicating the measure could add tens of millions of dollars in bed and contracting costs over the next biennia; opponents at the hearing cited a projected $43.7 million to $45 million increase in near-term biennial costs and pointed to recent, large capital costs for new facilities (the department is building a women’s prison, cited at about $166 million for 304 beds in testimony).

Restorative-justice and faith-based witnesses, and the North Dakota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, also opposed the bill. They argued longer mandatory confinement has not reliably reduced crime nationally, would increase prison populations and costs, and would limit use of evidence-based reentry programs that they say reduce recidivism. The statewide restorative-justice program operator, Consensus Council, said restorative processes that bring offenders and victims together have produced measurable reductions in reoffending and urged continued investment in such services.

Clarifications and procedural notes

Committee members and witnesses discussed prior legislative changes that reduced mandatory minimums for some drug offenses in recent sessions; witnesses said those changes, combined with DOCR's housing and programming choices, affected how long people actually remain in secure custody after sentencing. Jeremy Enzried, criminal director in the attorney general’s office, told the committee the bill’s draft and the proposed amendment exempt a defined set of “eligible offenders” (simple possession, paraphernalia, some thefts) from the truth-in-sentencing provisions so those low-level offenders would not be subject to the 50%/85% rules.

DOCR and several county prosecutors also said current capacity constraints matter: witnesses reported DOCR operating over 100% of bed capacity in recent data and county jails experiencing deferred admissions; local prosecutors warned that sending more people to secure prison beds without new capacity would require out-of-state placements or significant new capital spending.

Next steps

The committee extended the hearing, heard additional pro and con witnesses, and did not take a vote on the bill at the session’s close. Members discussed gathering more written data and allowing written questions to the attorney general’s office after the hearing. The committee recessed at the conclusion of oral testimony and will consider amendments, fiscal data and stakeholder input before scheduling further action.