Lawmakers and victims' advocates were dismayed by a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a New York law that compensates victims by seizing profits criminals make by describing their crimes.
By an 8-0 vote, the court said Tuesday the state's so-called "Son of Sam" law violates constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression by singling out criminals' proceeds from books, movies and other published works."I think this is a blow to victims' rights," said Barbara Leak, chairwoman of the state Crime Victims Board. "We need to be able to say you can't get profits from being a wrongdoer."
State Sen. Emanuel Gold, who sponsored the law, said he was "disgusted" by the ruling.
New York officials have used the law to seize profits from Jean Harris, the convicted killer of "Scarsdale Diet" Dr. Herman Tarnower; Mark David Chapman, convicted of killing John Lennon; and R. Foster Winans, a former Wall Street Journal reporter convicted of insider trading.
The 1977 statute was enacted after public outrage about reports that publishers were offering large sums to "Son of Sam" serial killer David Berkowitz for the rights to his story. The law never applied to Berkowitz, who was found incompetent to stand trial.
Opponents of the law had argued that victims wouldn't be denied compensation because federal and state law permits judges to order civil penalties that can be taken from criminals' assets.
"We said from the outset that this case was not about compensating victims of crimes, it was about protecting the right to tell all sides of a story," said Richard Snyder, chairman of Simon & Schuster.
Gold said he and Assemblyman Alan Hevesi plan to introduce new legislation they hope will avoid infringing on freedom of speech but still keep criminals from profiting from telling their stories.