Victims ’ Rights And The Son Of Sam Law: Implications For Free Speech And Research On Offenders

In 1978, New York passed legislation to prohibit criminals receiving money from selling their stories to publishers and movie producers. The legislation, called the "Son of Sam law, " resulted from the publicity associated with the 1978 serial murders by David Berkowitz. Subsequently, more than 40 states and the federal government passed similar legislation. Proponents of this legislation hailed it as a step toward victims ’ rights, but opponents viewed it as a serious encroachment upon the First Amendment of the U. S. Con-stitution. In 1991, the U. S. Supreme Court unanimously held this law to be unconstitutional, which victims ’ rights advocates saw as a serious blow to their movement. However, the law was more complex than a simple conflict between victims ’ rights and criminals ’ rights. The law’s reach extended to cover a very broad range of literature and even threatened research conducted by social scientists. This essay discusses the Son of Sam law and its ramifica-tions. Spokepersons for victims ’ rights stated that their movement experienced a setback when the U.S. Supreme Court held that states could not confiscate money payable to criminals for books and movie contracts (Barrett, 1991; Mauro, 1991). The Court held this practice unconstitutional in Simon & Schuster v. New York Crime Victims Board (1991), which is also referred to as the &dquo;Son of Sam&dquo; law. This unanimous decision perplexed many ob-servers because the current Court had been viewed as a strong supporter of victims ’ rights (e.g., See Payne v. Tennessee, 1991, where the Court overruled two recent decisions to allow victim impact statements in capital cases.). However, this issue is more complex than a simple conflict between criminal