Mandatory minimum sentencing bill back on the table
The push to pass a bill requiring offenders to serve a mandatory minimum sentence fell short in the 2023 legislative session. But North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley has revived his so-called “truth in sentencing” bill for reconsideration by lawmakers this session. If the first hearing in January was any indication, the measure promises to stir up controversy that Inforum divides into two camps.
A North Dakota bill that would ensure defendants serve at least 85% of their sentences drew hours of impassioned testimony and debate over whether it would deter crime and promote public safety or simply crowd prisons at a high cost.
Over the course of several hours, the North Dakota Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony Tuesday, Jan. 21, and Wednesday for and against Senate Bill 2128. Attorney General Drew Wrigley proposed the legislation, which would require offenders to serve 85% of their sentence before they qualify for release, also known as “truth in sentencing.”
Authorities maintain there’s little uniformity in the amount of time served after sentencing, resulting in vastly different outcomes.
Data from the [Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation] DOCR suggests the average time an inmate serves at one of its facilities is 50%, but that includes prison and transitional centers.
Early releases happen because North Dakota does not have a minimum standard for how much time must be spent behind bars, [Assistant Burleigh County State’s Attorney Dennis] Ingold said.
In addition, the bill would set minimum jail sentences for simple assault of an officer, fleeing law enforcement and resisting arrest, among other infractions.
Crime has increased over the years, Wrigley said in arguing that his bill would hold those who confront law enforcement accountable. Fleeing, resisting and assault on officers often is served concurrently with other offenses, he said.
“It is a freebie, and it is a slap in the face to every man and woman who wears a uniform in this state that has watched misconduct toward them increase over the last decade or more,” Wrigley said. “All our legislation asks is for that to not be a freebie.”
Opponents argue mandatory sentences can result in overcrowding of prisons, already a concern in North Dakota. Longer sentences also drive up the cost to the public of housing more inmates.
Minimum mandatory sentencing laws do not reduce crime or recidivism, said Andrew Myer, a criminal justice professor at the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute.
“For deterrence to work, we need three things to happen,” he said. “We need certainty, which means that the person will be arrested or caught for their crimes, we need celerity, that the punishment will happen quickly, and we need severity, that the punishment is at an appropriate level.”
While the measure would require violent offenders to complete 85 percent of their sentence in prison, nonviolent criminals could do their time in halfway houses under the current draft of the legislation.