Photo Courtesy of Twitter (@wsucbhj)
Many prisoners are still burdened after their release from prison due to some states requiring inmates to pay for their incarceration to “reimburse” taxpayers. Connecticut resident Teresa Beatty is impacted by this.
The 58-year-old ex-con was released in prison years ago yet still paying for her troubles. Connecticut charges prisoners $249 a day for their incarceration. Beatty was imprisoned for 2.5 years on drug charges, making the amount she owed the state $83,762.
The state slapped a lien on the Stamford home she and her siblings inherited after their mother passed away to ensure they receive the money, which the law allows.
“When a person who owes the state money for the costs of incarceration inherits property or money, the state’s claim is a lien against the inheritance for the total cost of incarceration or 50% of the inheritance, whichever is less,” the law read.
And now, Beatty is afraid that her only option is to sell her the home she inherited from her deceased mother. She lives in the house with her two adult children, grandchild, and disabled brother.
“I’m about to be homeless” Beatty told AP News. “I just don’t think it’s right, because I feel I already paid my debt to society. I just don’t think it’s fair for me to be paying twice.”
According to state Rep. Steve Stafstrom, around 98% of Connecticut prisoners don’t have to pay incarceration costs anymore under the revised law. However, the prisoners with debts already on the books before the law changed have to pay.
Beatty got involved with the lawsuit that challenged the state law forcing prisoners to pay $249 a day for their incarceration. Her debts were already booked before the revised law, but there are hopes that the lawsuit will allow her to keep her home.
Her lawyers aren’t only fighting for Beatty but also other formerly incarcerated inmates impacted by the law.
Beatty knows that she still committed a crime by selling and possessing drugs, but she wasn’t informed that she would be charged each day she was imprisoned.
“It just drags you back to despair,” Beatty said. “That’s where I feel like I’m at. I feel like no hope. Where do I go? All of this work, and it feels like I’ve done it in vain.”
Pay-to-Stay laws began in the 1980s. When the prison population bloomed, the government wanted to cut back from paying incarceration costs, so they decided to transfer that burden from the state and taxpayers to the prisoners.
There are states, including Connecticut, that would go for the prisoners who run into money after their release.
For example, Former Connecticut prisoner Fred Hodges went to prison for over 17 years for murdering a man who stole his son’s bike. Hodges got $21,000 after a 2009 traffic accident. The state took half of his money. And after paying his lawyer to represent him, he only ended up with $3,000.
“I have seven grandchildren and the money could have helped them,” Hodges said. “It could have helped me. You’d be surprised at the effect it can have on you psychologically when they tell you you owe them $249 a day. I was locked up for 17.5 years. At $249 a day, how are you going to come up out of that?”
The daily rate for prisoners varies depending on the state. In Michigan, the daily pay-to-stay rate for prisoners was up to $60 a day. Maine charged up to $80 a day in county jail.
There are states like North Carolina with pay-to-stay laws in place but don’t use them.
The Connecticut law was revised due to efforts to repeal it, in which city officials like Stafstrom supported the repeal because they viewed the law as unfair. It was partially repealed and went into effect July 1. However, Republican Sen. John Kissel thinks the original law was fair, claiming “everybody has issues.”
“The police is to make one appreciate that your incarceration costs money,” Connecticut Republican Sen. John Kissel said. “The taxpayers footed the bill. They didn’t do anything wrong. And knowing that one has to pay the state back a reasonable sum on a regular basis is not a bad policy.”
Beatty’s argument in the lawsuit is that her being forced to pay for her incarceration violates the excessive fines clause (Amendment VIII).
Hodges is the Program Manager of Family ReEntry Enterprise House, a nonprofit organization that aims to “break cycles of violence, crime and incarceration by providing client-centered interventions and support services to empower and strengthen individuals, families and communities.”
Da’ee McKnight, who works alongside Hodges at Family ReEntry, told AP News about how faced something similar to Hodges. The state took confiscated an insurance settlement from him, despite serving most of his sentence before the “pay-to-stay” law enacted.
“Here, I’m being penalized for something that I was not even made aware of at the time I was sentenced because it did not even exist,” McKnight said.