What Are Son of Sam Laws? Unpacking the Rules That David Berkowitz Inspired (and How They Relate to the Idaho College Murders)

Son of Sam Laws: Understanding the Legislation Inspired by David Berkowitz

Son of Sam laws have been a topic of interest when discussing criminals profiting from their crimes, with their constitutionality often under scrutiny. These laws were inspired by David Berkowitz, also known as the Son of Sam, who committed a series of murders in New York City from 1976 to 1977. In a recent Netflix docuseries titled Conversations With a Killer: The Son of Sam Tapes, Berkowitz delves into his mindset during the killing spree, shedding light on his interactions with the media and his desire to profit from his crimes.

Berkowitz’s case led New York lawmakers to take action to prevent him and other criminals from benefiting financially from their acts. The Son of Sam law was passed in 1977, prior to Berkowitz having a chance to profit from his crimes. Under this law, victims were granted the right to sue and claim any proceeds derived by convicts from media deals related to their offenses. Similar laws were subsequently implemented in other states, although their enforcement and specifics varied.

The origins of the Son of Sam law stem from Berkowitz’s infamous murder spree, during which he adopted the moniker ‘Son of Sam’ in his communications with the media and law enforcement. He sought to use his notoriety for financial gain, with reports indicating potential earnings of up to millions of dollars from book deals and movie rights. However, the legality and ethical implications of criminals profiting from their crimes raised concerns, leading to the introduction of these laws.

Around 40 states in the US have some form of Son of Sam laws, with each state having its own set of regulations and enforcement mechanisms. The laws typically aim to restrict convicted criminals from capitalizing on their crimes through media ventures, such as books, films, or TV shows. However, the enforcement and constitutionality of these laws have faced challenges over the years.

In 1991, the Supreme Court ruled New York’s Son of Sam law unconstitutional in the case Simon & Schuster v. Members of the New York Crime Victims Board. The Court found the law infringed upon the First Amendment rights of authors and publishers, leading to concerns about censorship and financial burdens on individuals due to the content of their speech. This landmark decision prompted a reassessment of Son of Sam laws across the country.

Over the years, New York has amended its Son of Sam law to encompass a broader range of income sources that criminals may acquire during their incarceration, beyond just media-related earnings. Recent proposals in the state seek to further expand the law’s scope to include spouses and relatives of convicts, aiming to prevent them from benefiting from criminal notoriety.

In instances where states do not have specific Son of Sam laws, like Idaho, judicial sentences have become crucial in discouraging criminals from seeking media attention or financial gains from their crimes. In a recent case in Idaho involving a quadruple murder, the judge emphasized the importance of not granting perpetrators the fame and recognition they seek through media deals or projects.

As the debate around Son of Sam laws continues, the balance between victims’ rights, free speech, and preventing criminals from profiting from their deeds remains a complex and evolving legal issue. The legacy of David Berkowitz and the legislation inspired by his crimes continues to shape discussions on justice, victim compensation, and the limits of individuals benefiting from their unlawful actions.