Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Connecticut charges incarcerated people up to $347 a day and can collect the debt for 20 years after release, including from settlements and inheritances. A 2026 investigation found the state collected about $21 million this way since 2020.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
Connecticut has charged incarcerated people a daily fee for the cost of their imprisonment since 1995, and state law lets the Department of Administrative Services collect on that debt for up to 20 years after release, including by taking up to half of a lottery win, inheritance or lawsuit settlement, or a lien against a deceased person's estate. A Connecticut Mirror investigation published September 27, 2026 found the daily rate has reached $347, that a year in prison can produce a debt of nearly $127,000, and that the state collected about $21 million this way from 2020 to mid-2026 from hundreds of formerly incarcerated people, including money from wrongful-death and police-brutality settlements. The legislature narrowed the law in 2022 and 2024, and a federal lawsuit led the state to withdraw its claims against its four named plaintiffs by October 2024, but collection from others has continued. The dispute is whether Connecticut should be allowed to collect this debt from former inmates' settlements, inheritances and windfalls at all, not whether any individual's specific bill was calculated correctly.
Read the full background
This case classifies public positions on one question: should Connecticut be allowed to collect the cost of a person's incarceration from money they receive after release, including legal settlements, inheritances and lottery winnings, for up to 20 years after release? It does not classify whether any individual's specific debt calculation was correct, and it is not about prison funding or incarceration policy in general.
Connecticut has charged incarcerated people a per diem fee for the cost of their confinement since 1995. Under the current statute, the Department of Correction and the Department of Administrative Services, the state's collection agency, carry out the debt collection (opens in a new tab). A 2022 legislative research report (opens in a new tab) describes the mechanics: the state can place a lien against a lawsuit judgment or an inheritance for the full cost of incarceration or 50 percent of the proceeds, whichever is less, and can place a lien against a deceased person's estate for the full cost of incarceration, for up to 20 years after release. A 2022 amendment, Public Act 22-118, exempted the first $50,000 of most people's assets and limited the lawsuit-proceeds lien to a list of serious offenses, effective May 7, 2022.
A Connecticut Mirror investigation published September 27, 2026 (opens in a new tab) found the state has charged as much as $347 per day, producing a debt of nearly $127,000 for a year in prison, more than double the federal government's rate. Reviewing hundreds of probate-court cases from 2020 to 2026, the paper found the state collected about $21 million from hundreds of formerly incarcerated people in that period, including money from medical-malpractice, police-brutality, workplace-injury and wrongful-death settlements, and that about 72 percent of the liens the state filed in that period yielded nothing because the underlying estates had nothing left to collect.
State officials have described the debt as a lawful, long-standing collection duty rather than argued for its fairness on the merits. Eleanor Michael, a deputy commissioner at the Department of Administrative Services, said her agency implements the law and is "not involved in the policy discussion." Attorney General William Tong's office said it is required to assist DAS in debt collection "if the statutory criteria and facts of each case warrant it." When the law passed in 1995, its sponsors framed the fee as a matter of fairness to taxpayers; Sen. John Kissel, a co-sponsor still in the legislature, told the Associated Press in 2022 (opens in a new tab) that "knowing that one has to pay the state back a reasonable sum on a regular basis is not a bad policy."
Advocates, an attorney and several people pursued for the debt have condemned the practice. Dan Barrett, legal director of the ACLU of Connecticut, said the debt "builds so quickly that you can reach astronomical numbers within a comparatively short amount of time." Lisa Foster, co-founder of the Fines and Fees Justice Center, called the law "a regressive tax." The ACLU of Connecticut and formerly incarcerated plaintiffs sued Governor Ned Lamont and Attorney General Tong in March 2022, arguing the law violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines. The state withdrew its demand to collect from all four plaintiffs by October 2024 (opens in a new tab), though collection from others has continued.
Connecticut's legislature considered a full repeal in 2022 but instead narrowed the law through Public Act 22-118; the Connecticut Mirror reported lawmakers made further, smaller changes in 2026 reporting on a 2024 follow-up bill, though the specific text of that later change could not be independently confirmed here. Rep. Steve Stafstrom, who sponsored the repeal effort, said the 2022 changes meant about 98 percent of Connecticut inmates no longer have to pay any of the costs of their incarceration after they get out. The Connecticut Mirror's 2026 reporting found the state is still pursuing hundreds of people a year for the remaining debt, including through settlements in wrongful-death and police cases.
People in this case
William TongDirectly involved
Ned LamontDirectly involved
John KisselCommented
Timeline
14 timeline entries on this page. Dates: June 1, 1995 to October 26, 2026
June 1995
Connecticut enacts law charging inmates for the cost of incarceration
State legislators passed a law directing the Department of Correction to assess a daily cost-of-incarceration fee against people in its custody. Sponsors said the goal was to help offset the state's prison costs and hold people accountable for the cost of their crimes.
[01]They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.
Source excerpt
The state has charged as much as $347 per day, meaning anyone who was imprisoned for a year in Connecticut racked up a tab of nearly $127,000. The state can collect on that debt for up to two decades after people are released from prison.
CT Mirror investigation into Connecticut's cost-of-incarceration collection law, published September 27, 2026. Based on a review of hundreds of probate-court cases filed from 2020 to 2026 and interviews with more than a dozen affected people, state officials, legislators and advocates. Anchors this case's account of the practice's scale, mechanics and the on-record positions of DAS, the Attorney General's office and named advocates and affected individuals.
They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"
March 2022
ACLU of Connecticut sues over the cost-of-incarceration law
Claim
The ACLU of Connecticut and formerly incarcerated plaintiffs Teresa Beatty and Michael Llorens sued Governor Ned Lamont and Attorney General William Tong in federal court, arguing the law's collection of settlements, inheritances and other windfalls violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines.
[02]Beatty v Lamont (case page)
Source excerpt
As of October 2024, the state surrendered to the final plaintiff in this case, withdrawing its demand to collect any of our clients' liens. With the state having abandoned its demands for payment from all plaintiffs, we and our clients claimed victory in Beatty v. Lamont.
ACLU of Connecticut's own case page for Beatty v. Lamont (D. Conn. No. 3:22-cv-00380), the federal class-action lawsuit challenging Connecticut's cost-of-incarceration law under the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause. States the filing date, the defendants, the March 2023 ruling, the plaintiffs who joined in April 2023, and the October 2024 outcome, and carries first-person statements from plaintiffs Teresa Beatty and Natasha Tosado.
Beatty v Lamont (case page)Full case page, including the "Summary" section and the profiles of Teresa Beatty, Natasha Tosado and Doug Johnson under "Meet the People Fighting to End Prison Debt"Judiciary Committee approves full-repeal bill
Connecticut's Judiciary Committee voted to advance HB 5390, which proposed repealing incarceration-cost liability. The proposal did not become the full repeal advocates sought.
[03]Connecticut Judiciary Committee report on HB 5390
Connecticut's Judiciary Committee voted to advance HB 5390, which proposed repealing incarceration-cost liability. The proposal did not become the full repeal advocates sought. The committee recorded Jess Zaccagnino urging abolition of prison debt, describing it as unjust and harmful to families. The committee recorded Barbara Fair supporting repeal because incarceration liens add an unjust burden after release. The committee recorded Lisa Foster urging repeal, arguing that incarceration fees are regressive and undermine reentry. The Division of Criminal Justice supported ending incarceration fees to help people return successfully to their communities.
Connecticut Judiciary Committee report on HB 5390Page 1, vote date and action; Page 2, ACLU-CT testimony summary; Page 3, Barbra Fair testimony summary; Page 5, Fines & Fees Justice Center testimony summary; Page 2, response from administration/agency
May 2022
Public Act 22-118 narrows the law's reach
A 2022 amendment took effect exempting the first $50,000 of most formerly incarcerated people's assets from collection and limiting the state's lien on lawsuit proceeds to a list of the most serious offenses.
[04]Reimbursement of Incarceration Costs in Connecticut (OLR Report 2022-R-0149)
Source excerpt
A new law additionally exempts up to $50,000 of an inmate’s other assets except those for inmates incarcerated for capital felony or murder with special circumstances, felony murder, 1st and 2nd degree sexual assault, 1st degree aggravated sexual assault, or aggravated sexual assault of a minor (PA 22-118, §§ 457-458, effective upon passage
Nonpartisan Connecticut General Assembly research report summarizing the state's cost-of-incarceration statutes (CGS SS 18-85a, 18-85b and 18-85c) and the 2022 amendments made by Public Act 22-118, including the $50,000 asset exemption, the narrowed lawsuit-proceeds lien and the 20-year collection windows for lawsuit proceeds, inheritances and estates.
Reimbursement of Incarceration Costs in Connecticut (OLR Report 2022-R-0149)Full report, including the "Property Subject to the State's Claim," "Lawsuit Proceeds" and "Inheritance" sections
March 2023
Federal court allows Beatty's lawsuit to proceed against new defendants
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled that Teresa Beatty could continue her lawsuit against the cost-of-incarceration law, but only after substituting a different set of state defendants.
[02]Beatty v Lamont (case page)
Source excerpt
As of October 2024, the state surrendered to the final plaintiff in this case, withdrawing its demand to collect any of our clients' liens. With the state having abandoned its demands for payment from all plaintiffs, we and our clients claimed victory in Beatty v. Lamont.
ACLU of Connecticut's own case page for Beatty v. Lamont (D. Conn. No. 3:22-cv-00380), the federal class-action lawsuit challenging Connecticut's cost-of-incarceration law under the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause. States the filing date, the defendants, the March 2023 ruling, the plaintiffs who joined in April 2023, and the October 2024 outcome, and carries first-person statements from plaintiffs Teresa Beatty and Natasha Tosado.
Beatty v Lamont (case page)Full case page, including the "Summary" section and the profiles of Teresa Beatty, Natasha Tosado and Doug Johnson under "Meet the People Fighting to End Prison Debt"
April 2023
Two more plaintiffs join the federal lawsuit
Natasha Tosado and Doug Johnson joined Beatty v. Lamont as plaintiffs, adding claims that the state sought part of a wrongful-death settlement and inherited family property to satisfy their incarceration debts.
[02]Beatty v Lamont (case page)
Source excerpt
As of October 2024, the state surrendered to the final plaintiff in this case, withdrawing its demand to collect any of our clients' liens. With the state having abandoned its demands for payment from all plaintiffs, we and our clients claimed victory in Beatty v. Lamont.
ACLU of Connecticut's own case page for Beatty v. Lamont (D. Conn. No. 3:22-cv-00380), the federal class-action lawsuit challenging Connecticut's cost-of-incarceration law under the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause. States the filing date, the defendants, the March 2023 ruling, the plaintiffs who joined in April 2023, and the October 2024 outcome, and carries first-person statements from plaintiffs Teresa Beatty and Natasha Tosado.
Beatty v Lamont (case page)Full case page, including the "Summary" section and the profiles of Teresa Beatty, Natasha Tosado and Doug Johnson under "Meet the People Fighting to End Prison Debt"
February 2024
Meyer limits the prison-debt lawsuit but allows overcharge claims
Judge Jeffrey Meyer dismisses the broader Excessive Fines Clause challenges. He allows Beatty and Johnson to pursue claims that the state sought more than the statute permitted.
[05]Beatty v. Lamont: February 27, 2024 order on motion to dismiss
The court dismisses broader excessive-fines challenges while allowing two plaintiffs to pursue claims that the state sought more than the statute authorized.
Beatty v. Lamont: February 27, 2024 order on motion to dismissDocket 107, conclusion on pages 32-33
May 2024
Connecticut approves Public Act 24-81, ending debt claims tied to erased records
Connecticut approves Public Act 24-81. Effective July 1, 2024, Section 31 ends state incarceration-cost claims for time served on criminal records that were later erased. It does not refund payments made before that date.
[06]Connecticut Public Act 24-81: incarceration-debt provisions
The act addresses claims tied to erased records, inheritance exemptions and estate claims. The cited sections state a July 1, 2024 effective date.
Connecticut Public Act 24-81: incarceration-debt provisionsSections 31-33, pages 63-65; approval date on page 351
July 2024
Public Act 24-81 incarceration-debt sections take effect
Sections 31-33 take effect. Section 31 ends claims for time served on later-erased records; Sections 32 and 33 replace the inheritance-lien and estate-claim provisions.
[06]Connecticut Public Act 24-81: incarceration-debt provisions
The act addresses claims tied to erased records, inheritance exemptions and estate claims. The cited sections state a July 1, 2024 effective date.
Connecticut Public Act 24-81: incarceration-debt provisionsSections 31-33, pages 63-65; approval date on page 351
October 2024
State withdraws its claims against the Beatty v. Lamont plaintiffs
Reaction
By October 2024, the state had withdrawn its demand to collect incarceration debt from all four plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit, and the ACLU of Connecticut said the case ended in a win for its clients.
[02]Beatty v Lamont (case page)
Source excerpt
As of October 2024, the state surrendered to the final plaintiff in this case, withdrawing its demand to collect any of our clients' liens. With the state having abandoned its demands for payment from all plaintiffs, we and our clients claimed victory in Beatty v. Lamont.
ACLU of Connecticut's own case page for Beatty v. Lamont (D. Conn. No. 3:22-cv-00380), the federal class-action lawsuit challenging Connecticut's cost-of-incarceration law under the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause. States the filing date, the defendants, the March 2023 ruling, the plaintiffs who joined in April 2023, and the October 2024 outcome, and carries first-person statements from plaintiffs Teresa Beatty and Natasha Tosado.
Beatty v Lamont (case page)Full case page, including the "Summary" section and the profiles of Teresa Beatty, Natasha Tosado and Doug Johnson under "Meet the People Fighting to End Prison Debt"
September 2026
Connecticut Mirror publishes investigation into the cost-of-incarceration law
Source release
An investigation found Connecticut has charged as much as $347 a day for incarceration, collected about $21 million from formerly incarcerated people from 2020 to mid-2026, and continued to pursue the debt from legal settlements despite two rounds of legislative changes.
[01]They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.
Source excerpt
The state has charged as much as $347 per day, meaning anyone who was imprisoned for a year in Connecticut racked up a tab of nearly $127,000. The state can collect on that debt for up to two decades after people are released from prison.
CT Mirror investigation into Connecticut's cost-of-incarceration collection law, published September 27, 2026. Based on a review of hundreds of probate-court cases filed from 2020 to 2026 and interviews with more than a dozen affected people, state officials, legislators and advocates. Anchors this case's account of the practice's scale, mechanics and the on-record positions of DAS, the Attorney General's office and named advocates and affected individuals.
They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"Monk discusses the prison-debt investigation on Long Story Short
Source release
In Long Story Short, Ebong Udoma interviews Ginny Monk about how the reporting began, what Connecticut collects and the financial effects on families.
[07]PODCAST: CT charges its prisoners and the financial impact can be life changing
The interview discusses the investigation's origins, collections, financial effects and earlier legislative efforts.
PODCAST: CT charges its prisoners and the financial impact can be life changingFull published interview transcript with Ginny Monk and Ebong UdomaLamont and legislative leaders seek prison-debt changes in 2027
Reaction
After CT Mirror's investigation, Lamont and leaders from both parties called for reconsidering the law in the 2027 session. Lamont also said officials were exploring administrative relief. They had not agreed on repeal.
[08]Lamont, lawmakers call for changes to CT prison debt law
CT Mirror reports Lamont's September 30 remarks supporting changes in 2027, while retaining possible charges for wealthy former inmates. The leaders had not settled on repeal.
Lamont, lawmakers call for changes to CT prison debt lawOpening account of Wednesday's remarks; paragraphs beginning 'Lamont said state officials' and 'Maybe if'; subsequent legislative-leader responses.
October 2026
CT Mirror publishes a guide to prison-debt collection
Source release
Monk explains how the state calculates incarceration costs, places inheritance liens and collects payments. The guide also describes the changes lawmakers are considering for 2027.
[09]What to know about CT Mirror's investigation into prison debt
Ginny Monk explains how the state assesses and collects the debt, the limits in state law and the changes lawmakers are considering.
What to know about CT Mirror's investigation into prison debtExplanatory sections on calculation, collection and proposed changes
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
ACLU of Connecticut
Connecticut's prison-debt law, under which the state can seize up to half of a settlement, inheritance or other financial windfall for up to 20 years after release, violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines.
Sources (1)
- Beatty v Lamont (case page)Full case page, including the "Summary" section and the profiles of Teresa Beatty, Natasha Tosado and Doug Johnson under "Meet the People Fighting to End Prison Debt"
Disputed claim
Under the law as revised in 2022, about 98 percent of Connecticut inmates no longer have to pay any of the costs of their incarceration after they get out.
Sources (1)
Disputed claim
The Attorney General's office is required to assist the Department of Administrative Services in collecting prison debts if the statutory criteria and facts of each case warrant it.
Sources (1)
- They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
22 responses. First 6 shown initially. Newest first.
Jason RojasJason Rojas, Connecticut House majority leader, in comments reported October 1 Before this statement
Rojas says that merely creating exceptions for people who can afford the cost could get complicated.
"a policy that adds to that just seems really inconsistent"
CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
Rojas argues that prison debt adds to financial insecurity after release.
After the statement
Rojas says it is hard, on a human level, to know lawmakers' decisions affect people this way.
Lamont, lawmakers call for changes to CT prison debt lawOpening account of Wednesday's remarks; paragraphs beginning 'Lamont said state officials' and 'Maybe if'; subsequent legislative-leader responses.Why this label?
The reference point is collection of incarceration costs. Rojas criticizes the policy for adding to financial instability.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Ned LamontGovernor of ConnecticutDirectly involvedBefore this statement
He said officials were exploring administrative relief and he would support legislative changes in 2027.
"Maybe if it's Gordon Gekko or some Wall Street titan, yeah, I think they should contribute to the cost of their incarceration. But I think for the other 90% of people, I want to make sure when they've served their time, they get back out, they're not stuck with an incredible burden that is impossible for them to pay off"
Mixed or conditionalCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
Lamont supported changing the law to protect people unable to repay prison debt, while saying wealthy former inmates should contribute to incarceration costs.
After the statement
Legislative leaders had not agreed whether to repeal the law or change its exemptions.
Lamont, lawmakers call for changes to CT prison debt lawOpening account of Wednesday's remarks; paragraphs beginning 'Lamont said state officials' and 'Maybe if'; subsequent legislative-leader responses.Why this label?
He rejects unaffordable charges but retains a possible exception for people with substantial means.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Tracy DeSentiHamden resident Before this statement
The state pursued a lien against Billy DeSenti's estate for $232,733 in incarceration debt after his death in 2023, and Tracy DeSenti had to sell the North Branford home they had renovated together to help satisfy roughly $21,000 of that debt.
"I still can't wrap my head around losing the thing that I worked for"
CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
DeSenti, who had to sell the home she and her late husband had renovated together to help satisfy the debt the state assessed for his earlier incarceration, said she still cannot process losing what she worked for.
After the statement
She now rents a home in Hamden with her three sons and is studying to become a probation officer.
They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"Why this label?
DeSenti directly objects to losing her home to satisfy the state's incarceration debt, describing the loss as something she still cannot accept.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Alex TaubesCivil-rights and criminal-defense attorney Before this statement
Taubes was commenting on the effect of Connecticut's incarceration debt on people after release.
"It hurts people's ability to reintegrate into society when they carry these debts"
CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
Taubes, a New Haven civil-rights attorney, said carrying incarceration debt makes it harder for formerly incarcerated people to reintegrate into society.
After the statement
CT Mirror's investigation found many people pursued for the debt did not know they owed it until a lien was filed against them.
They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"Why this label?
Taubes criticizes the practical effect of the debt on people rebuilding their lives after release.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Eleanor MichaelDeputy Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Administrative Services Before this statement
Michael was responding to a question about whether DAS could waive a lien in cases of financial hardship, after Lisa Janssen's attorney argued the law allowed the agency to set aside a lien to support a surviving spouse.
"We're not involved in the policy discussion here"
Explicitly stayed outCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
Michael, a deputy commissioner at the Department of Administrative Services, said her agency implements the law set by the legislature and declined to weigh in on whether the underlying policy is right.
After the statement
She said DAS has no ability to waive a prison lien based on the statute Janssen's attorney cited.
They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"Why this label?
Michael explicitly frames her agency's role as implementation rather than policy judgment, declining to state whether the practice is justified.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Lisa FosterCo-founder, Fines and Fees Justice Center; former California Superior Court judge Before this statement
Foster was commenting generally on state laws that charge incarcerated people for the cost of their imprisonment, including Connecticut's.
"It's not the way we should be running the criminal justice system. It's a regressive tax"
CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
Foster, a co-founder of the Fines and Fees Justice Center and a former California judge, said laws like Connecticut's function as an extra financial punishment on people who have already served their sentence.
After the statement
She said it does not matter that a person has already served their sentence and paid their debt to society.
They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"Why this label?
Foster rejects the law as an improper way to run the criminal justice system and frames it as an unfair extra tax on formerly incarcerated people.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Show fewer responses
Dan BarrettLegal director, ACLU of Connecticut Before this statement
CT Mirror's investigation found Connecticut's daily per diem is more than double the federal government's rate.
"It builds so quickly that you can reach astronomical numbers within a comparatively short amount of time"
CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
Barrett, the ACLU of Connecticut's legal director, said the daily cost Connecticut assigns to prisoners builds quickly enough to reach very high total debts in a short period.
After the statement
Barrett separately said the state's practice amounts to trying to collect money from people who have very little left after prison.
They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"Why this label?
Barrett directly criticizes the size and pace of the debt as unreasonably high, rejecting the fairness of its effect on people who owe it.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Dan BarrettDan Barrett, ACLU of Connecticut legal director, in comments reported April 29; the quotation date is not established Before this statement
CT Mirror reports that the state seeks incarceration-cost reimbursement from a possible settlement benefiting Torres.
"It's ghoulish, it's unconstitutional"
CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
Barrett criticizes the state claim against a potential settlement benefiting Victor Torres. He argues that incarceration debt can let the state offset damages arising from its own conduct.
After the statement
The report describes the potential damages claim and responses from state agencies.
CT seeks to claim money from Mimi Torres-García's fatherBarrett response to the state claim and explanation of incarceration-debt collectionWhy this label?
The reference point is Connecticut collecting incarceration costs from former inmates. Barrett expressly criticizes a claim against a potential settlement as unconstitutional.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Natasha TosadoPlaintiff, Beatty v. Lamont; mother of Jayson Negron Before this statement
Tosado's fifteen-year-old son, Jayson Negron, was fatally shot by a Bridgeport police officer in 2017 while Tosado was incarcerated. His estate later reached a settlement with the city, and the state sought part of it to satisfy Tosado's incarceration debt.
"No family should have to bury a child, and the state is making that pain worse. I will never stop grieving Jayson. The settlement in his death was the best acknowledgment we could get that they took his life, and that it was wrong. The state trying to take that money forces me and my family to relive the trauma of Jayson’s death, and it has left me angry and hurt. By joining this lawsuit, I am fighting for myself and for other families, because none of us should have to go through this"
CondemnedResponding to: Connecticut's prison-debt law, under which the state can seize up to half of a settlement, inheritance or other financial windfall for up to 20 years after release, violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines.
Full statement and sources
Tosado, whose son was fatally shot by a Bridgeport police officer while she was incarcerated, said the state trying to take part of the wrongful-death settlement from his death compounds her family's grief, and she joined the federal lawsuit against the law.
After the statement
Tosado joined the federal lawsuit against the law as a plaintiff on April 20, 2023.
Beatty v Lamont (case page)Full case page, including the "Summary" section and the profiles of Teresa Beatty, Natasha Tosado and Doug Johnson under "Meet the People Fighting to End Prison Debt"Why this label?
Tosado directly objects to the state pursuing part of a wrongful-death settlement tied to her son's death, describing the practice as adding to her family's harm.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
John KisselConnecticut state senator (R-Enfield); co-sponsor of the 1995 lawBefore this statement
Kissel was responding to Teresa Beatty's case and the 2022 debate over narrowing the law. In the same interview, the Associated Press reported that while Beatty's situation tugs at one's heartstrings, Kissel said, "Everybody has issues." He said he opposed the Democratic-led repeal effort but might support installment-payment reforms.
"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"
Defended or excusedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
Kissel, a co-sponsor of the 1995 law who remains the top Senate Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said taxpayers covered the cost of a person's incarceration and that requiring repayment on a reasonable schedule is a reasonable policy.
After the statement
Kissel did not respond to the CT Mirror's requests for comment for its September 2026 report.
Why this label?
Kissel argues the underlying practice of requiring repayment is justified because taxpayers funded the incarceration and did nothing wrong.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Teresa BeattyFormerly incarcerated Stamford resident; lead plaintiff, Beatty v. Lamont Before this statement
Beatty was incarcerated for two and a half years on drug charges and later faced a state lien on money she inherited from her mother.
"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"
CondemnedResponding to: Connecticut's prison-debt law, under which the state can seize up to half of a settlement, inheritance or other financial windfall for up to 20 years after release, violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines.
Full statement and sources
Beatty, who later became the lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit against the law, said she does not think it is right for the state to collect money for her incarceration after she already served her sentence.
After the statement
She became the lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit filed the same year challenging the law.
Why this label?
Beatty directly rejects the practice as unfair to her personally, framing it as a second punishment for the same offense.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Office of the Connecticut Attorney GeneralCounsel representing the Connecticut state defendants Before this statement
State defendants asked a federal court to dismiss a challenge to Connecticut's incarceration-cost collection law.
"remedial and therefore not fines"
Defended or excusedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
The state defendants defended incarceration-cost recovery in court, arguing that it compensates the government rather than imposes an excessive fine. They also sought dismissal on standing and jurisdictional grounds.
After the statement
The defendants also raised standing and jurisdictional objections to the lawsuit.
Connecticut state defendants' memorandum supporting dismissal, June 17, 2022Pages 1-2, introduction to June 17 motionWhy this label?
Defends the state's recovery of incarceration costs in the litigation.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Jenny CarrollDirector of the Arthur Liman Center at Yale Law School at the time of the interview Before this statement
Connecticut enacted limits on incarceration liens in 2022.
"committed to seeing this repeal through"
CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
Jenny Carroll welcomed the 2022 limits on incarceration liens but said the coalition remained committed to full repeal.
After the statement
Carroll said the coalition would continue working toward full repeal.
Liman Center and Coalition Lessen Harm of Connecticut's Incarceration Lien LawMay 26 interview, final Carroll quotationWhy this label?
Urges repeal of continued fee collection; welcoming partial reform does not endorse the remaining liens.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Lisa FosterCo-director, Fines and Fees Justice Center Before this statement
Connecticut's Judiciary Committee summarized testimony on HB 5390.
"Described statement (committee summary): The committee recorded Lisa Foster urging repeal, arguing that incarceration fees are regressive and undermine reentry."
CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
The committee recorded Lisa Foster urging repeal, arguing that incarceration fees are regressive and undermine reentry.
After the statement
The report attributed support for repeal to Foster.
Connecticut Judiciary Committee report on HB 5390Page 1, vote date and action; Page 2, ACLU-CT testimony summary; Page 3, Barbra Fair testimony summary; Page 5, Fines & Fees Justice Center testimony summary; Page 2, response from administration/agencyWhy this label?
Rejects continued fee collection.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Benedict R. DaigleAssistant public defender submitting testimony for the Office of Chief Public Defender Before this statement
Daigle submitted testimony for the Office of Chief Public Defender supporting HB 5390.
"This office requests that the Committee vote favorably on this bill."
CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
Benedict Daigle urged repeal on behalf of the Office of Chief Public Defender, arguing that prison debt undermines rehabilitation and takes compensation intended to help people recover from harm.
After the statement
Daigle argued that collection undermined rehabilitation and took money intended to compensate people for harm.
Benedict Daigle's testimony supporting HB 5390Page 1, testimony dated March 25, 2022Why this label?
Urges repeal of continued fee collection; welcoming partial reform does not endorse the remaining liens.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Jess ZaccagninoPolicy counsel, ACLU of Connecticut Before this statement
Connecticut's Judiciary Committee summarized testimony on HB 5390.
"Described statement (committee summary): The committee recorded Jess Zaccagnino urging abolition of prison debt, describing it as unjust and harmful to families."
CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
The committee recorded Jess Zaccagnino urging abolition of prison debt, describing it as unjust and harmful to families.
After the statement
The report attributed support for abolishing prison debt to Zaccagnino.
Connecticut Judiciary Committee report on HB 5390Page 1, vote date and action; Page 2, ACLU-CT testimony summary; Page 3, Barbra Fair testimony summary; Page 5, Fines & Fees Justice Center testimony summary; Page 2, response from administration/agencyWhy this label?
Rejects continued fee collection.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Connecticut Division of Criminal JusticeConnecticut state prosecution agency Before this statement
Connecticut's Judiciary Committee summarized testimony on HB 5390.
"Described statement (committee summary): The Division of Criminal Justice supported ending incarceration fees to help people return successfully to their communities."
CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
The Division of Criminal Justice supported ending incarceration fees to help people return successfully to their communities.
After the statement
The report recorded the division's support for ending the fees to aid reentry.
Connecticut Judiciary Committee report on HB 5390Page 1, vote date and action; Page 2, ACLU-CT testimony summary; Page 3, Barbra Fair testimony summary; Page 5, Fines & Fees Justice Center testimony summary; Page 2, response from administration/agencyWhy this label?
Rejects continued fee collection.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Barbara FairStop Solitary CT organizer Before this statement
Connecticut's Judiciary Committee summarized testimony on HB 5390.
"Described statement (committee summary): The committee recorded Barbara Fair supporting repeal because incarceration liens add an unjust burden after release."
CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
The committee recorded Barbara Fair supporting repeal because incarceration liens add an unjust burden after release.
After the statement
The report attributed support for repeal to Fair.
Connecticut Judiciary Committee report on HB 5390Page 1, vote date and action; Page 2, ACLU-CT testimony summary; Page 3, Barbra Fair testimony summary; Page 5, Fines & Fees Justice Center testimony summary; Page 2, response from administration/agencyWhy this label?
Rejects continued fee collection.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Brian K. Sullivan Sr.Smart Justice leader, ACLU of Connecticut Before this statement
Sullivan submitted testimony supporting HB 5390.
"It is wrong, unjust, and oppressive to attempt to charge people for prison debt."
CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
Brian Sullivan urged repeal of prison debt, arguing that people who complete their sentences should not face additional financial punishment.
After the statement
Sullivan argued that people should not face further financial punishment after completing their sentences.
End prison debt, for me and my familyPublished full testimony, opening policy argumentWhy this label?
Urges repeal of continued fee collection; welcoming partial reform does not endorse the remaining liens.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Arthur Liman Center for Public Interest LawYale Law School public-interest research centerBefore this statement
Connecticut's Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB 5390, which proposed ending incarceration-cost liability.
"little economic benefit for the state"
CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
The Arthur Liman Center urged repeal of the incarceration lien, citing burdens on families, obstacles to reentry and constitutional concerns.
After the statement
The center argued that incarceration liens burdened families and provided little financial benefit to the state.
Arthur Liman Center testimony supporting HB 5390Page 1, testimony for March 25, 2022 hearingWhy this label?
Urges repeal of continued fee collection; welcoming partial reform does not endorse the remaining liens.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Mumina EgalUConn law student, writing jointly with Anna VanCleave Before this statement
Connecticut's Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB 5390, which proposed ending incarceration-cost liability.
"harmful and makes bad economic policy"
CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
Mumina Egal and Anna VanCleave jointly urged repeal, arguing that prison debt obstructs reentry and that taking inheritances and settlements harms families without a sound fiscal rationale.
After the statement
Egal and VanCleave argued that prison debt obstructed reentry and harmed families.
UConn testimony supporting HB 5390Pages 1-2, joint testimony; Pages 3-6, separate joint testimonyWhy this label?
Urges repeal of continued fee collection; welcoming partial reform does not endorse the remaining liens.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Kiel Brennan-MarquezUConn law professor, writing jointly with Riley Breakell Before this statement
Connecticut's Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB 5390, which proposed ending incarceration-cost liability.
"We write in support of HB 5390"
CondemnedCase context: Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
Full statement and sources
Kiel Brennan-Marquez and Riley Breakell jointly urged repeal of Connecticut's incarceration lien, arguing that it undermines civil-rights remedies and imposes excessive, poorly disclosed punishment.
After the statement
Brennan-Marquez and Breakell argued that the lien undermined civil-rights remedies and imposed excessive punishment.
UConn testimony supporting HB 5390Pages 1-2, joint testimony; Pages 3-6, separate joint testimonyWhy this label?
Urges repeal of continued fee collection; welcoming partial reform does not endorse the remaining liens.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(17)
Reporting
They served their time in prison. Then the bills arrived.
Relevant passage: Full article, including the sections headed "Additional punishment," "The John Gottis of the world," "Blood from a stone," "Calls for repeal," "Collections continue," "A punch in the heart" and "Priority creditor"
Excerpt
"The state has charged as much as $347 per day, meaning anyone who was imprisoned for a year in Connecticut racked up a tab of nearly $127,000. The state can collect on that debt for up to two decades after people are released from prison."
About this source
CT Mirror investigation into Connecticut's cost-of-incarceration collection law, published September 27, 2026. Based on a review of hundreds of probate-court cases filed from 2020 to 2026 and interviews with more than a dozen affected people, state officials, legislators and advocates. Anchors this case's account of the practice's scale, mechanics and the on-record positions of DAS, the Attorney General's office and named advocates and affected individuals.
- Author
- Ginny Monk and Andrew Brown
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
CT seeks to claim money from Mimi Torres-García's father
Relevant passage: Barrett response to the state claim and explanation of incarceration-debt collection
About this source
CT Mirror reports the state claim against a potential settlement and interviews Dan Barrett about incarceration-debt collection.
- Author
- Ginny Monk and Laura Tillman
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
What to know about CT Mirror's investigation into prison debt
Relevant passage: Explanatory sections on calculation, collection and proposed changes
About this source
Ginny Monk explains how the state assesses and collects the debt, the limits in state law and the changes lawmakers are considering.
- Author
- Ginny Monk
- Published
- Accessed
Interview
PODCAST: CT charges its prisoners and the financial impact can be life changing
Relevant passage: Full published interview transcript with Ginny Monk and Ebong Udoma
About this source
The interview discusses the investigation's origins, collections, financial effects and earlier legislative efforts.
- Author
- CT Mirror's Long Story Short
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Connecticut Public Act 24-81: incarceration-debt provisions
Relevant passage: Sections 31-33, pages 63-65; approval date on page 351
About this source
The act addresses claims tied to erased records, inheritance exemptions and estate claims. The cited sections state a July 1, 2024 effective date.
- Author
- Connecticut General Assembly
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Beatty v. Lamont: February 27, 2024 order on motion to dismiss
Relevant passage: Docket 107, conclusion on pages 32-33
About this source
The court dismisses broader excessive-fines challenges while allowing two plaintiffs to pursue claims that the state sought more than the statute authorized.
- Author
- U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Lamont, lawmakers call for changes to CT prison debt law
Relevant passage: Opening account of Wednesday's remarks; paragraphs beginning 'Lamont said state officials' and 'Maybe if'; subsequent legislative-leader responses.
About this source
CT Mirror reports Lamont's September 30 remarks supporting changes in 2027, while retaining possible charges for wealthy former inmates. The leaders had not settled on repeal.
- Author
- Ginny Monk
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Benedict Daigle's testimony supporting HB 5390
Relevant passage: Page 1, testimony dated March 25, 2022
About this source
Benedict Daigle urged repeal on behalf of the Office of Chief Public Defender, arguing that prison debt undermines rehabilitation and takes compensation intended to help people recover from harm.
- Author
- Office of Chief Public Defender
- Accessed
Original text
End prison debt, for me and my family
Relevant passage: Published full testimony, opening policy argument
About this source
Brian Sullivan urged repeal of prison debt, arguing that people who complete their sentences should not face additional financial punishment.
- Author
- Brian K. Sullivan Sr.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Connecticut Judiciary Committee report on HB 5390
Relevant passage: Page 1, vote date and action; Page 2, ACLU-CT testimony summary; Page 3, Barbra Fair testimony summary; Page 5, Fines & Fees Justice Center testimony summary; Page 2, response from administration/agency
About this source
Connecticut's Judiciary Committee voted to advance HB 5390, which proposed repealing incarceration-cost liability. The proposal did not become the full repeal advocates sought. The committee recorded Jess Zaccagnino urging abolition of prison debt, describing it as unjust and harmful to families. The committee recorded Barbara Fair supporting repeal because incarceration liens add an unjust burden after release. The committee recorded Lisa Foster urging repeal, arguing that incarceration fees are regressive and undermine reentry. The Division of Criminal Justice supported ending incarceration fees to help people return successfully to their communities.
- Author
- Connecticut General Assembly
- Accessed
Original text
Connecticut state defendants' memorandum supporting dismissal, June 17, 2022
Relevant passage: Pages 1-2, introduction to June 17 motion
About this source
The state defendants defended incarceration-cost recovery in court, arguing that it compensates the government rather than imposes an excessive fine. They also sought dismissal on standing and jurisdictional grounds.
- Author
- Office of the Connecticut Attorney General
- Accessed
Interview
Liman Center and Coalition Lessen Harm of Connecticut's Incarceration Lien Law
Relevant passage: May 26 interview, final Carroll quotation
About this source
Jenny Carroll welcomed the 2022 limits on incarceration liens but said the coalition remained committed to full repeal.
- Author
- Yale Law School
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Arthur Liman Center testimony supporting HB 5390
Relevant passage: Page 1, testimony for March 25, 2022 hearing
About this source
The Arthur Liman Center urged repeal of the incarceration lien, citing burdens on families, obstacles to reentry and constitutional concerns. The heading gives an inconsistent year; the text identifies the March 25, 2022 hearing.
- Author
- Arthur Liman Center for Public Interest Law
- Accessed
Original text
UConn testimony supporting HB 5390
Relevant passage: Pages 1-2, joint testimony; Pages 3-6, separate joint testimony
About this source
Kiel Brennan-Marquez and Riley Breakell jointly urged repeal of Connecticut's incarceration lien, arguing that it undermines civil-rights remedies and imposes excessive, poorly disclosed punishment. Mumina Egal and Anna VanCleave jointly urged repeal, arguing that prison debt obstructs reentry and that taking inheritances and settlements harms families without a sound fiscal rationale.
- Author
- Kiel Brennan-Marquez, Riley Breakell, Mumina Egal and Anna VanCleave
- Accessed
Official statement
Beatty v Lamont (case page)
Relevant passage: Full case page, including the "Summary" section and the profiles of Teresa Beatty, Natasha Tosado and Doug Johnson under "Meet the People Fighting to End Prison Debt"
Excerpt
"As of October 2024, the state surrendered to the final plaintiff in this case, withdrawing its demand to collect any of our clients' liens. With the state having abandoned its demands for payment from all plaintiffs, we and our clients claimed victory in Beatty v. Lamont."
About this source
ACLU of Connecticut's own case page for Beatty v. Lamont (D. Conn. No. 3:22-cv-00380), the federal class-action lawsuit challenging Connecticut's cost-of-incarceration law under the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause. States the filing date, the defendants, the March 2023 ruling, the plaintiffs who joined in April 2023, and the October 2024 outcome, and carries first-person statements from plaintiffs Teresa Beatty and Natasha Tosado.
- Author
- ACLU of Connecticut
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
At $249 Per Day, Prison Stays Leave Ex-Inmates Deep in Debt
Relevant passage: Full article
Excerpt
"Under the revised law, about 98% of Connecticut inmates no longer have to pay any of the costs of their incarceration after they get out, said state Rep. Steve Stafstrom, a Bridgeport Democrat and a sponsor of the repeal legislation."
About this source
Associated Press wire story republished by NBC Connecticut, reported around the time Connecticut's 2022 partial overhaul of the cost-of-incarceration law took effect. Quotes Sen. John Kissel defending the underlying policy, Rep. Steve Stafstrom describing the reform's effect, and affected individuals including Teresa Beatty, Fred Hodges and Da'ee McKnight.
- Author
- The Associated Press
- Published
- Accessed
Analysis
Reimbursement of Incarceration Costs in Connecticut (OLR Report 2022-R-0149)
Relevant passage: Full report, including the "Property Subject to the State's Claim," "Lawsuit Proceeds" and "Inheritance" sections
Excerpt
"A new law additionally exempts up to $50,000 of an inmate’s other assets except those for inmates incarcerated for capital felony or murder with special circumstances, felony murder, 1st and 2nd degree sexual assault, 1st degree aggravated sexual assault, or aggravated sexual assault of a minor (PA 22-118, §§ 457-458, effective upon passage"
About this source
Nonpartisan Connecticut General Assembly research report summarizing the state's cost-of-incarceration statutes (CGS SS 18-85a, 18-85b and 18-85c) and the 2022 amendments made by Public Act 22-118, including the $50,000 asset exemption, the narrowed lawsuit-proceeds lien and the 20-year collection windows for lawsuit proceeds, inheritances and estates.
- Author
- Michelle Kirby, Office of Legislative Research
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/should-connecticut-collect-per-diem-incarceration-fees-from-former-inmates-settlements-and-windfalls
The Dispute Index. "Should Connecticut collect per diem incarceration fees from former inmates' settlements and windfalls?". First published: 2026-09-29. Last updated: 2026-09-29. https://disputeindex.com/cases/should-connecticut-collect-per-diem-incarceration-fees-from-former-inmates-settlements-and-windfalls