By Nketiah “Ink” Berko  

An inheritance is an important family legacy that can provide a safety net for future generations. For working families struggling to keep up with rising living costs, the transfer of a family home or other inheritance can provide newfound economic security. In particular, the anticipated wealth transfer from the Baby Boomer generation to their heirs — estimated to be over $50 trillion — has the potential to provide millions of families with improved financial stability.

The hard-earned wealth of working-class families, however, has become increasingly vulnerable. Affluent families are often better situated to protect and transfer their wealth using legal tools such as trusts or business entities. By contrast, working-class families’ wealth — the majority of which is held as home equity — is far more precarious and often vulnerable to seizure to cover health care costs and other expenses before it can be passed on and can face additional threats when transferred.

One example of the precarity of working-class intergenerational wealth arises in the criminal-legal context. More than half of states potentially authorize seizing the inheritances of incarcerated or formerly incarcerated people to pay for the costs of their own incarceration, known as “pay-to-stay” fees. Nearly every state charges incarcerated people these pay-to-stay fees, which may include charges for room and board, medical expenses, and other necessities.

A recent study by Professor Brittany Deitch found that, of the states that charge individuals for incarceration-related expenses, three expressly authorize seizure of inheritance assets and 25 may potentially permit it.

These seizures of inheritances for pay-to-stay fees may occur decades after a person served their sentence and can jeopardize financial stability in old age. Connecticut resident Teresa Beatty, for instance, received a bill for over $83,000, stemming from a two-year incarceration that ended 20 years prior, when her mother passed away and left her a portion of the family home.

Pay-to-stay laws and, in particular, the seizure of family inheritances to cover pay-to-stay fees, exacerbate an already wide chasm between the haves and have-nots, causing poor families to grow poorer as rich families continue to grow richer.

Seizing family inheritances to pay for incarceration causes particular harm to Black communities. Due to widespread inequities across the criminal justice system, as well as historic disinvestment in Black neighborhoods, Black families have less wealth available to pass to their heirs and are more likely to lose what little wealth they manage to build to the government to pay for the costs of operating prisons and jails. Moreover, seizure of resources to collect pay-to-stay fees can make it harder for returning citizens to achieve the financial stability necessary to reintegrate into society and avoid reincarceration.

Constitutional challenges to pay-to-stay fees have largely been unsuccessful, but reformers have made progress through several state legislatures. Illinois, New Hampshire, and Missouri have repealed their pay-to-stay statutes in recent years. Additionally, in 2022, Connecticut partially reformed its pay-to-stay laws, exempting incarcerated individuals from paying the first $50,000 of their incarceration costs and collecting only from individuals convicted of “serious crimes.”

State policymakers have an important role to play in reforming the laws that sentence formerly incarcerated people and their families to generations of debt. In addition to an analysis of the disparate harm that pay-to-stay laws and inheritance seizures have on low-income and Black communities. This paper provides recommendations to state lawmakers on how to end or alleviate the punishing impact of incarceration fees.

State policymakers have an important role to play in reforming the laws that sentence formerly incarcerated people and their families to generations of debt. In addition to an analysis of the disparate harm that pay-to-stay laws and inheritance seizures have on low-income and Black communities. This paper provides recommendations to state lawmakers on how to end or alleviate the punishing impact of incarceration fees.

National Consumer Law Center, 2025. 7p.

By Sheldon Glueck (Author), Graeme Newman (Introduction)

Sheldon Glueck’s Probation and Criminal Justice (1931), a collection of papers from world wide experts, stands as one of the earliest systematic examinations of probation within the American penal system. Published at a time when probation was still consolidating its place as a regularized judicial practice, the book sought both to describe the institution as it existed and to evaluate its possibilities as a rational and humane alternative to imprisonment. Glueck, already well known as a criminologist and later famed for his longitudinal studies on criminal careers, approached probation with the same empirical rigor and critical balance that defined his scholarship.
The work provides a historical account of probation’s origins, tracing its roots to the nineteenth-century innovations of John Augustus in Boston, and situates its emergence within the broader reform movements of the Progressive Era. By the early 1930s, probation had spread widely across American jurisdictions, yet it lacked the uniformity, resources, and professional standards necessary for consistent success. Glueck’s central argument was therefore twofold: probation held genuine promise as an instrument of rehabilitation and social reintegration, but its potential could only be realized through careful administration, adequately trained personnel, and an honest reckoning with its limitations.
To read Probation and Criminal Justice today is to encounter both a historical document and a surprisingly contemporary critique. The themes Glueck emphasized—the professionalization of probation officers, the dangers of excessive caseloads, the necessity of balancing rehabilitation with accountability—are still at the heart of debates over community supervision. The persistence of these concerns is a testament both to the enduring complexity of probation as a penal tool and to the prescience of Glueck’s analysis.
In this sense, the book is more than a relic of early twentieth-century criminology. It is a reminder that penal reform, however well intentioned, remains fragile unless supported by adequate resources, clear objectives, and sustained public commitment. Probation has advanced since Glueck’s time in terms of reach, sophistication, and legitimacy, yet the paradoxes he identified continue to shape its practice.
For scholars, practitioners, and students of criminal justice, this volume offers not only a window into the early years of probation but also a mirror reflecting ongoing challenges in community-based corrections. Glueck’s careful and critical study thus retains its relevance: a classic text that still speaks to the unfinished project of building a fair, effective, and humane system of criminal justice.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. 211 p.

By Elizabeth Neuland

On May 4, 2021, New York became the 20th state to restore the right to vote to individuals upon release from custody, regardless of parole status. In a time when the United States government is trying to protect voting rights through the “For the People Act” and “The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act,”  and while some states are seeing radical legislation proposed that would potentially suppress the right to vote, New York needs to abolish the antiquated practice of felony disenfranchisement and guarantee the right to vote to all eligible New Yorkers regardless of incarceration status. The practice of felony disenfranchisement does not align with the values and core curriculum of the programs being provided by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) within state correctional facilities. The overview statement for program services reads, “DOCCS offers an extensive array of programs and services for incarcerated individuals to assist them in redirecting their lives and becoming productive, law-abiding members  of society.” Although the word “rehabilitation” is absent, this statement essentially summarizes what rehabilitation is. The argument to abolish felony disenfranchisement is highlighted by the vast rehabilitation efforts taken by DOCCS, through numerous employment and vocational programs, temporary release programs, and educational opportunities. Felony disenfranchisement stands in stark opposition to rehabilitation because it alienates individuals from the very communities to which DOCCS is taking great measures to help them to return In addition to rehabilitation, restoring the right to vote to all eligible New Yorkers regardless of incarceration status would raise the level of accountability for state politicians, lawmakers, and DOCCS itself. It is no secret that correctional facilities can be dangerous places, due to both interpersonal violence and acts of self-inflicted harm, including suicide. Accountability should apply to those that are the guardians of a vulnerable population. In Parts I and II, this Comment provides a brief overview of international and national practices of felony disenfranchisement to see where New York fits into the landscape. Part III concentrates on New York State. Its legislation affecting disenfranchisement and the number of individuals incarcerated are discussed to highlight how many people are affected by felony disenfranchisement. The argument to fully abolish felony disenfranchisement is made through discussions of rehabilitation and accountability. Lastly, this Comment describes how all New York citizens could be enfranchised.  

 City University of New York Law Review. 2022, 25pg