Connecticut’s capital city of Hartford. Teresa Beatty, who was released from prison 20 years ago, says she still feels like she’s being punished.
Her mother passed away two years ago, and the state of Connecticut promptly placed a lien on the Stamford home she and her siblings inherited. It stated that her drug-related incarceration for 2.5 years would cost $83,762.
Now she worries she’ll have to sell the house she’s lived in for the past 51 years, where she currently resides with her two grown daughters, grandchild, and disabled brother.
“I’m about to be homeless,” Beatty, 58, who in March became the lead plaintiff in a case contesting the state statute that fines convicts $249 a day for the expense of confinement, said. “Since I consider myself to have made amends to society, I don’t think it’s right. I just don’t think it’s right that I have to pay twice.”
Only two states do not have “pay-to-stay” legislation that require inmates to pay for their incarceration, but not all of these states actively collect the money. Proponents argue that the funds are a lawful means through which states can recuperate millions of dollars otherwise spent on incarceration.
It has been argued that leaving ex-offenders with a lifetime of debt is a harsh secondary punishment that can prevent them from ever truly moving on with their lives. In certain areas, reforms are under process to reduce or do away with these regulations altogether.
Since 2019, two states have abolished their laws: Illinois and New Hampshire.
This year, Connecticut likewise reformed its statute by limiting its application to the most heinous offenses like murder and removing the need that inmates pay the first $50,000 of their incarceration fees out of their own pockets.
According to state Representative Steve Stafstrom (D-Bridgeport), who helped pass the repeal law, nearly all former Connecticut offenders will no longer be responsible for paying any of the costs associated with their incarceration.
However, the state was still able to pursue payment of some outstanding prison obligations that existed prior to the legislative change. It’s not certain if the modification of the statute enacted in response to Beatty’s lawsuit will be sufficient to allow her to remain in her house. This is something that must be settled in court.
Legal representation for her has sought a federal judge to prevent the state from enforcing the statute, arguing that even with the changes, it is still unfair.
Beatty admits that she was selling and carrying narcotics, but claims that no one warned her that the cost of incarceration would be higher than that of a night in a luxury hotel.
Beatty, who has had several run-ins with the law for drug possession since her release from prison, has said, “It simply takes you back to misery.” “I feel that that best describes my current situation. There’s no way out, in my opinion. What do I do now? It’s as though my efforts up to this point have been for nothing.”
The practice of “pay to stay” was widely implemented in the 1980s and 1990s, according to Brittany Friedman, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Southern California who is leading a study on the topic.