A Connecticut Law Forces Ex-cons To Give Up Their Inheritance To Pay Back The Costs Of Prison
Connecticut law, Chapter 325 – Section 18-85a. and 18-85b, give the state the right to impose a first priority lien on any ex-con’s inheritance to pay back the costs of time spent in prison.
The state calculates that the cost of prison is equal to $249 a day, or $90,885 a year.
That number has seen a 280% increase since 1997 when the calculation was just $31,755 a year.
This means that if you went to jail for a year and you get an inheritance that’s worth $100,000, the state will take $90,885 leaving you with $9,115. A “priority lien” means that they legally put a halt on your inheritance in court, so there’s no way around it. And they get first dibs before any outstanding creditors.
The law also imposes the right to recover any money an ex-con wins from a lawsuit, the lottery or even if they have a “cause of action,” meaning, if they have any legal claims against anyone the state can take that money.
This law comes as a shock to formerly incarcerated people as they are never warned about the long lasting consequences serving time has.
Lawsuit Claims The Law Is Unconstitutional
Teresa Beatty, through the ACLU, filed a class action against the state claiming that the law is unconstitutional.
Read the full complaint here:
Beatty’s primary argument is that the law is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
For one, the costs of prison are determined by third party decision makers, and inmates have no input on how those costs are managed.
Secondly, the law is overly punitive. It concert with other the life-shattering consequences of being an ex-con, the law further punishes ex-cons by eliminating an opportunity to share in the bounty of their deceased loved ones.
A final point, which wasn’t listed in the complaint but it is something I believe – the system is already stacked against criminals. Just because you’ve gone to prison doesn’t mean you are “guilty.” Only 3% of criminal cases actually have a fair trial. Defendants are pressured into plea deals because if they lose at trial their sentences can be multipled. If you were facing 10 years in prison and the state offered you 1 year in prison with probation… which would you take?
A lot of people say “well if I’m truly innocent I’d go to trial”… but juries are notoriously unpredictable, and if you find yourself in criminal court chances are the circumstances of your arrest aren’t so black and white. Meaning, the prosecution can and will find things to make you look bad.
So my issue with this law is that defendants already exist in a system that encourages and promotes prison as the one-size-fits all solution to criminal allegations.
The reach of this law only extends to prison, but such brazen government interference can lead to other laws of similar magnitude. Should ex-cons be forced to pay the salaries of their probation officers? The costs of their public defender? The cost of parole?
Some may argue yes, claiming that punishments along those lines may effectively reduce crime. Others may argue that if the purpose of incarceration is rehabilitation, then how is anyone every supposed to become a working economic unit if they’re bogged down by massive debt from the mistakes of their past?
For Teresa Beatty, the answers are clear. After being out of prison for some time, she and others are wondering why their inheritances, passed down by loved ones, are being taken from them.
Beatty’s lawsuit is still ongoing in CT district court.
What do you think?
Can A Trust Avoid Prison debt?
When the state comes after your inheritance they are a creditor like any other creditor who has a claim. They do get priority meaning they get first dibs before other creditors. So, the same trust laws apply when dealing with the state.
The statute specifically allows the state to go after trusts, but also any trust that would be shielded would have to have been created at least 5 years before the debt was incurred.