5 Shocking Ways The Son Of Sam Law Is Being Updated Right Now (And Why It Still Fails)

The "Son of Sam" Law, officially known in New York as Executive Law § 632-a, is one of the most famous and legally contentious pieces of legislation in American history. Created in the wake of David Berkowitz's notorious 1970s killing spree, its core mission is simple: to prevent convicted criminals from profiting from the publicity of their horrific crimes. As of today, December 10, 2025, this 48-year-old law is not a dusty relic; it is actively being challenged, amended, and expanded across the United States in response to the true-crime boom and new digital platforms, revealing surprising new legal battlegrounds that extend far beyond book deals and movie rights.

Originally enacted in 1977, the law was a direct response to the public outrage over David Berkowitz, the self-proclaimed "Son of Sam," receiving lucrative offers to sell his story. While the original version was struck down by the Supreme Court, a significantly broader, modern version now exists in New York and over two dozen other states, constantly evolving to close loopholes and ensure that financial gain from heinous acts is redirected to victims and their families.

The Architect of The Law: David Berkowitz, The Son of Sam

The "Son of Sam" Law is inextricably linked to the man whose actions inspired its creation. David Berkowitz, known by his aliases "Son of Sam" and "The .44 Caliber Killer," became a symbol of urban terror and the legal loophole that allowed criminals to monetize their infamy.

• The Enduring Legacy Of Haylor 5 Shocking Facts About Harry Styles And Taylor Swifts Relationship 10 Years Later Sf662

• Full Name: David Richard Berkowitz
• Born: June 1, 1953
• Place of Birth: Brooklyn, New York
• Aliases: Son of Sam, The .44 Caliber Killer
• Military Service: Former U.S. Army soldier
• Crimes: Serial murderer who terrorized New York City between July 1976 and July 1977. He murdered six people and wounded several others.
• Motive (Self-Proclaimed): Berkowitz initially claimed that his neighbor’s dog, a Labrador named Harvey, was possessed by a demon that ordered him to kill.
• Arrest and Conviction: Arrested on August 10, 1977. He pleaded guilty to the murders and was sentenced to six life sentences (365 years in prison).
• Current Status: Incarcerated at the Shawangunk Correctional Facility in New York State. He has since become a born-again Christian.

The Legal Evolution: From Unconstitutional to Unstoppable

The history of the Son of Sam Law is a legal rollercoaster, primarily defined by the tension between victims' rights and the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Understanding this evolution is crucial to grasping its current power.

The Original Flaw: Simon & Schuster v. New York (1991)

The initial 1977 New York Executive Law § 632-a required that any contract a convicted person made regarding the reenactment of their crime would have to deposit all proceeds into an escrow account for victims. This original statute was challenged when the publishing house Simon & Schuster advanced money to an organized crime figure for his memoir.

In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark case Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., found the law unconstitutional.

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

The Court ruled that the law was "overinclusive" because it regulated speech based on its content (a crime story) and was not narrowly tailored enough to achieve the state's interest in compensating victims. [cite: 10 in step 1]

The Modern Power: The 2001 Amendments

In response to the Supreme Court's decision, New York State significantly amended its law in 2001. The new version shifted the focus away from regulating "speech" and instead focused on seizing a convicted person's "profits from the crime" or "funds of a convicted person." [cite: 4 in step 1, 12]

The modern law is now incredibly broad, defining a "profit from a crime" as any income, compensation, or benefit derived from the crime, including royalties, commissions, or even gifts related to the notoriety of the crime. [cite: 1 in step 1, 7 in step 1]

• Shania Twains Bold Statement Why The Star Chose Nude Photoshoots At 57 Qf9cg

5 Shocking Ways The Son of Sam Law is Being Updated Right Now

The most compelling evidence that the Son of Sam Law is "alive and well" is not its history, but its current application and the ongoing legislative efforts to expand its reach into the digital age and family finances. This is where the law is becoming truly modern and, for some, controversial.

1. Targeting Family Members of Criminals

In one of the most significant and recent legislative pushes, New York lawmakers are seeking to amend the law to prevent the *family members* of defendants from profiting from the crime.

This effort was spurred by the highly publicized case of the Gilgo Beach murders defendant, Rex Heuermann, where media speculation arose about his family potentially selling their story.

The proposed bills aim to close this "family loophole," ensuring that the financial incentive to capitalize on a crime does not simply transfer from the criminal to their spouse, children, or parents. This represents a major expansion of the law's scope, moving beyond the convicted person to their immediate circle.

2. Seizing Workers’ Compensation Settlements

A recent New York appeals court ruling confirmed the law's power to seize funds that would typically be protected by other statutes. The court ruled that the Son of Sam Law supersedes the state’s Workers' Compensation Law.

In this case, the state’s Office of Victim Services (OVS) successfully barred a convicted murderer from spending a Workers' Compensation settlement, arguing that the funds should be made available for victim restitution. This decision proves the law’s sweeping reach over any unexpected financial windfall a convicted person might receive while incarcerated or otherwise.

3. Extending the Law to Crowdfunding Platforms (The Ohio Example)

As traditional media gives way to digital fundraising, state legislators are adapting the law to cover new technology. In Ohio, lawmakers have introduced a bill to specifically extend their state's "Son of Sam" law to include crowdfunding platforms like GoFundMe, Kickstarter, and others. [cite: 8 in step 1]

This proposed amendment targets campaigns that may solicit funds for a convicted person or their defense, especially when the appeal is based on the notoriety of the crime itself. This is the latest frontier in the fight to prevent "notoriety-for-profit" in the digital age.

4. The Broad "Funds of a Convicted Person" Definition

The 2001 amendments are powerful because they don't just target profits from "selling a story." The term "funds of a convicted person" allows the New York State Crime Victims Board to seek a civil judgment against virtually any significant asset a criminal possesses, regardless of its source, provided it can be linked to the crime’s notoriety.

This broad definition is why the law is still in use today against convicted felons, even those who never wrote a book. It allows the state to place a lien on assets, including an inheritance, a lottery win, or even the compensation settlement mentioned above, ensuring victims are prioritized.

5. The 27-State Network of Notoriety-for-Profit Laws

New York is not alone. Today, 27 states across the U.S. have enacted some form of a "notoriety-for-profit" law, all inspired by the original Son of Sam legislation.

While the specifics vary by state, the collective effort creates a national legal framework designed to prevent criminals from capitalizing on their infamy. The ongoing legal challenges and amendments in New York often serve as a template for other states, making the New York law the bellwether for victims' rights legislation nationwide.

The Continuing First Amendment Challenge

Despite its modern evolution and broader scope, the Son of Sam Law remains controversial, facing continuous legal scrutiny under the First Amendment.

Critics argue that even the amended laws are still content-based restrictions on speech, which is a highly protected category under the U.S. Constitution. The argument is that the law disproportionately burdens criminals who wish to write about their lives, while others can freely write about their experiences. The Supreme Court's 1991 ruling established a high bar for such laws, requiring them to be "narrowly tailored." [cite: 10 in step 1, 12 in step 1]

The key for the modern law is its focus on financial profit and victim restitution, rather than the act of writing or speaking itself. By targeting the money, not the speech, the state attempts to navigate the delicate balance between compensating victims and upholding fundamental constitutional rights.

The legislative battle to include family members and crowdfunding platforms ensures that the Son of Sam Law will remain a dynamic and hotly debated topic in American jurisprudence for the foreseeable future.