Lonnie Grabowska

The Risk Level Committee meeting convened to review offender risk assessments. The committee discussed the process for assigning risk levels to offenders. A total of 37 offenders were assessed during the meeting. The outcomes included 17 offenders rated as LOW risk, 15 offenders rated as MODERATE risk, and 5 offenders rated as HIGH risk. Individual risk assessments were conducted for numerous offenders, involving executive sessions prior to determining the final risk rating through a motion and vote.

Key discussions during the meeting included a Quarterly Project Status Update, which noted that project metrics were updated as of January 25, 2026, the project plan was ready for Executive Steering Committee (ESC) review, and environment setup/discovery sessions were in progress. The committee reviewed and recommended approval of the Project Plan. A primary agenda item was the transition of the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) model to an Oversight Committee (OC) model, which was subsequently approved by a roll call vote.

The presentation, delivered by Miss Ness from the Attorney General's office, focused on clarifying definitions and providing data related to criminal justice policies for legislative consideration. Key discussion points included clarifying the scope of Senate Bill 2028, specifically addressing the 50% sentence requirement for violent criminals versus the misconception of an 85% requirement, and confirming that mandatory minimums were not sought. The presenter detailed the increase in violent crime in North Dakota over the past decade, citing a 30% increase in violent crime rate since 2014. A major focus was placed on critically examining current statutory definitions, particularly the definition of 'violent crime,' noting that severe offenses like battery resulting in broken bones, rape of an unconscious victim, and child abuse by burning were not classified as violent crimes under existing law. Furthermore, the presentation emphasized the need for legislative clarity on definitions such as 'recidivism' (including or excluding out-of-state offenses or federal convictions), 'inmate status' (in relation to work or education release programs), and 'good time' allocation and earning. The committee also briefly discussed the need for cross-agency data sharing and identifying appropriate studies related to truth and sentencing.

The presentation focused on the critical need for transparency, accountability, and legitimacy within the criminal justice system, referencing the American Law Institute's 2023 Model Penal Code revisions. The speaker contrasted older discretionary sentencing models with the new emphasis on transparency, citing examples where sentences imposed by judges (including maximum sentences for sex offenses and aggravated assault) were drastically reduced (as low as 0.0% to 8.2% served before parole), leading to what scholars term 'institutionalized deception.' Key recommendations from the ALI discussed included abolishing parole systems, setting a minimum service floor of 70% for incarceration terms, and implementing clearer definitions for terms like 'incarceration' to ensure judicial intent is honored.

The Risk Level Committee meeting involved reviewing and assigning risk levels to numerous offenders across various assessment types, including Written Submission, Phone Conference, Phone Conference & Written Submission, Supplement, and New Assessment. The committee addressed 49 offenders in total. Key outcomes included assigning 20 offenders a MODERATE risk level, 17 a LOW risk level, and 11 a HIGH risk level. The review for one offender was tabled until the subsequent meeting. The process included explanations of risk level assignment requirements and procedures during the initial session.