The Unconstitutional Law That Still Works: 5 Shocking Facts About The Modern Son Of Sam Law

The Son of Sam Law remains one of the most controversial and misunderstood pieces of legislation in American legal history, a powerful symbol of the conflict between victims' rights and the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. As of , the law is no longer the simple 1977 statute enacted in New York, but a complex, revised legal framework adopted by nearly every state and the federal government, designed to ensure criminals cannot profit from their notoriety, especially through the lucrative true crime genre.

This legislation, originally spurred by the notorious serial killer David Berkowitz, has evolved dramatically since its inception. While the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the original New York version as unconstitutional, modern iterations have found a way to survive constitutional challenges by broadening their scope from just "storytelling profits" to seizing all "proceeds of crime." Understanding the current legal landscape is crucial, as recent court rulings and legislative amendments continue to shape who profits—and who pays—in the aftermath of high-profile crimes.

The Origin Story: David Berkowitz and the Constitutional Crisis

The original Son of Sam Law was enacted in New York in 1977. It was a direct response to the arrest of David Berkowitz, the serial killer who terrorized New York City and signed his notes as the "Son of Sam". The public was outraged by the prospect of Berkowitz signing a profitable book or movie deal detailing his horrific crimes, thereby profiting from the victims' suffering.

• The Surprise Vegas Wedding And Shared Grief 5 Shocking Details Of John Schneider And Dee Dee Sorvinos Whirlwind Romance Ohirf

The initial law was designed to prevent this by requiring that any money a criminal received from contracts related to the depiction of their crime be deposited into an escrow account managed by the New York State Crime Victims Board. These funds were then to be made available for restitution to the victims and their families.

The Landmark Supreme Court Ruling: Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board

The original law's constitutionality was finally challenged in a landmark 1991 case: *Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board*. The case centered on a book about Mafia hitman Henry Hill, titled *Wiseguy*, which was later adapted into the hit movie *Goodfellas*. The Crime Victims Board sought to seize the profits paid to Hill under the New York law.

The United States Supreme Court unanimously struck down the New York statute, ruling that it violated the First Amendment. The Court found that the law was an unconstitutional, content-based restriction on speech because it specifically targeted income derived from works that discussed the criminal's crimes, while allowing criminals to keep profits from other sources. This ruling effectively invalidated the original Executive Law 632-a and forced states to rethink their approach to criminal profit laws.

• The One Where They Tanked Jokes 15 Shocking New Secrets From The Friends Tv Show Behind The Scenes G9zdh

5 Shocking Facts About the Modern Son of Sam Law

The 1991 ruling did not eliminate the concept of seizing criminal profits; it merely changed how states and the federal government had to approach the problem. The modern legal framework is a complex patchwork of state laws and federal statutes that are much broader than the original law.

1. The Law’s Successor Statutes Target ALL Crime Proceeds, Not Just Book Deals

The key to the survival of the Son of Sam concept was a shift in legal focus. Modern, post-1991 statutes—adopted by at least 42 states—are designed to be content-neutral, meaning they do not specifically target speech (like a book or interview). Instead, they focus on seizing *any* assets or profits derived from the crime itself, or any non-exempt assets of the convicted person, to fulfill restitution and contribute to the Victim Compensation Fund.

This is a critical distinction: A criminal can still write a book, but the state can use broad civil forfeiture or victim restitution laws to seize the profits, along with any other non-exempt assets, to pay victims. This broader approach is less susceptible to a free speech challenge because it doesn't single out the medium of communication.

• 7 Shocking Things Jessica Capshaw Revealed About Growing Up With Steven Spielberg As Her Stepfather 892ho

2. The Law Can Seize Workman's Compensation and Other Unexpected Settlements

The modern application of the law extends far beyond traditional media profits. A very recent update from a New York Appeals Court highlights this breadth. The court ruled that the Son of Sam Law could be used to seize a murderer’s workman's compensation settlement. This demonstrates that the law is a powerful tool used to claim any significant financial windfall a convicted criminal receives, ensuring the money goes to the victims first, regardless of the source.

3. New Legislative Efforts Target "Family Members Profiting"

A major loophole in the original and even some revised laws is the ability of a criminal's immediate family or associates to profit from the story. In recent years, lawmakers have pushed for legislative amendments to close this gap. For example, new bills have been introduced to amend New York’s law to prevent family members profiting from the crimes of a defendant. This is a direct response to high-profile cases where relatives have signed lucrative deals to share their unique perspective, often circumventing the intent of the criminal profit laws.

4. The Federal Government Has Its Own Anti-Profiting Statute

The federal equivalent to the Son of Sam Law is part of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) and other federal statutes. These laws allow federal courts to order restitution to crime victims and, in some cases, to seize assets from the offender. The federal approach, like the modern state laws, focuses on the criminal’s financial obligations to the victim rather than placing a direct, content-based restriction on speech, thus avoiding the constitutional challenge that doomed the original New York law.

5. The Law Faces Continuous, Though Less Frequent, Constitutional Scrutiny

While the modern laws are designed to be content-neutral, they are not entirely immune to challenges. States like California have seen their replacement Son of Sam laws face judicial scrutiny, with some courts rejecting the new legislation as a violation of the First Amendment. This ongoing tension between protecting free speech and ensuring justice for victims means that the legal status of criminal profit laws is in a state of continuous, albeit subtle, evolution. The debate remains: how can society ensure that the proceeds of crime are directed to the victims without infringing on the right of an individual—even a criminal—to tell their story?

Topical Authority Entities and LSI Keywords

The story of the Son of Sam Law is a key legal nexus involving multiple high-profile entities and legal concepts. The debate touches on the ethics of the True Crime Genre, the limits of free speech, and the fundamental rights of victims. Key entities central to this topic include:

• David Berkowitz (The original Son of Sam)
• New York State Crime Victims Board (The agency tasked with enforcement)
• Simon & Schuster, Inc. (The publisher who challenged the law)
• United States Supreme Court (The final arbiter of the law's constitutionality)
• First Amendment (The core constitutional principle in the challenge)
• Victim Compensation Fund (The modern recipient of seized funds)
• Restitution (The legal term for paying back victims)
• Federal Anti-Profiting Statute (The federal equivalent)
• Executive Law 632-a (The original New York statute)
• Legislative Amendments (Ongoing efforts to close loopholes)
• Proceeds of Crime (The modern legal focus)
• Constitutional Challenge (The nature of the legal fight)
• Workman's Compensation Settlement (A recently targeted asset)
• Family Members Profiting (A current legislative target)
• Serial Killer (The catalyst for the original law)
• California State Law (An example of a state's revised law facing scrutiny)

The modern Son of Sam Law is a testament to the fact that while a specific law may be ruled unconstitutional, the underlying public policy goal—that criminals should not profit from their crimes—remains a powerful force in American jurisprudence. States continue to pass new, legally sound measures to achieve justice for victims, ensuring that any financial gain derived from notoriety is redirected to those who suffered the most.