Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont announced Wednesday that he will back legislative changes in the 2027 session to a state law that allows the government to assess a daily charge to people who are incarcerated and to collect that debt for as long as 20 years after they leave prison. The law, first passed in 1995, calculates a daily cost of incarceration and can take that money from current or former inmates when they receive inheritances, lottery winnings or certain lawsuit settlements.
High daily costs and real‑world impact
The Connecticut Mirror investigation that prompted the governor’s response found the state’s daily incarceration cost to be among the nation’s highest, reaching as much as $347 per day in recent years. Critics say many people are unaware they will be billed for the cost of their confinement, and the charges can jeopardize housing, business opportunities, and the ability to pass money to their children.
Governor’s stance and proposed administrative fixes
Lamont said officials are reviewing administrative options that could lessen the burden while he pledged to support any legislative overhaul 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,” Lamont explained.
Bipartisan legislative views
Both Democratic and Republican leaders admitted they had not previously focused on the issue and were uncertain whether a full repeal or a more limited amendment would be best. A 2022 repeal effort failed to clear committee, leading lawmakers to adopt a compromise that exempts lawsuit settlements except in cases involving certain murder or sexual‑assault convictions.
Advocates from Yale University, the ACLU and local re‑entry groups have been pushing for a full repeal. Da’ee McKnight and Fred Hodges of Family Reentry/Community Resource for Justice have urged the Judiciary Committee to revisit the measure.
Committee leaders weigh in
Judiciary Committee co‑Chair Rep. Steve Stafstrom, D‑Bridgeport, said he would like the 2022 repeal proposal back on the agenda for the next session. House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D‑East Hartford, warned that the policy often leaves people exiting the correction system in financially precarious situations, calling the added burden “inconsistent with how we’ve been thinking about criminal justice.”
House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, R‑North Branford, questioned whether the state actually profits after accounting for social‑service costs and debt‑collection expenses. He suggested a broader review of fairness and impact on re‑entry, adding he would be open to a repeal.
Potential reforms under discussion
Other lawmakers suggested targeted changes rather than a full repeal. House Speaker Matt Ritter, D‑Hartford, proposed a homestead exemption or a mechanism to protect housing for those rebuilding their lives. “What if you have a very wealthy person who goes to jail for six years with incredible means? Would it be fair to go after that person? Well, you might argue yes, right?” he asked.
Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney, D‑New Haven, echoed the call for a homestead exemption and urged the courts to have more discretion to intervene on a case‑by‑case basis, rather than automatically applying liens.
Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, R‑Brookfield, said the law will likely be reexamined next session to determine whether further revisions are warranted.
Human impact highlighted
Rojas summed up the human dimension: “Just on a very human level, it’s really hard as a policymaker to know that decisions that we make impact people in the way that they’re impacting people.” The discussion underscores a growing bipartisan concern that the current debt‑collection framework may hinder successful re‑entry and family stability.
The governor’s office and legislative leaders plan to convene in early 2027 to explore administrative adjustments and possible statutory amendments, with the goal of ensuring former inmates are not trapped by overwhelming financial obligations after serving their sentences.
Original reporting: The Connecticut Mirror — read the source article.
