|
A Son of Sam law is any law designed to keep criminals from profiting from the publicity of their crimes, often by selling their stories to publishers. While the term is most often used in the United States, it is also sometimes applied to laws passed with similar provisions in other nations. Son of Sam laws are not intended to enable asset forfeiture, the seizing of assets acquired directly as a result of criminal activity. Where asset forfeiture looks to remove the profitability of crimes by taking away money and assets gained from the crime, Son of Sam laws are designed so that criminals are unable to take advantage of the notoriety of their crimes. Such laws often authorize the state to seize money earned from deals such as book/movie biographies and paid interviews and use it to compensate the criminal's victims. The term "Son of Sam" refers to the nickname of serial killer David Berkowitz, the subject of a notorious 1978 murder case. In certain cases a Son of Sam law can be extended beyond the criminals themselves to include friends, neighbors, and family members of the lawbreaker who seek to profit by telling publishers and filmmakers of their relation to the criminal. In other cases, a person may not financially benefit from the sale of a story or any other mementos pertaining to the crime. ==Usage== The first such law was created in New York after the Son of Sam murders committed by serial killer David Berkowitz. It was enacted after rampant speculation about publishers offering large amounts of money for Berkowitz's story. The law was invoked in New York 11 times between 1977 and 1990, including once against Mark David Chapman, the murderer of musician John Lennon. Critics disputed the law in the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. It was argued that "Son of Sam" laws take away the financial incentive for many criminals to tell their stories, some of which (such as the Watergate scandal and the assassination of John F. Kennedy) were of vital interest to the general public. Though this original New York law was struck down, the Supreme Court ruling actually stated that Son of Sam laws could conceivably be constitutional, but only if written very carefully, with regard to First Amendment rights. Various states (including New York) now have laws to prevent felons from capitalizing on their crimes written with an eye towards adhering to the ruling laid out by the Supreme Court concerning the First Amendment. Another discussion of the Son of Sam law came over the case of Amy Fisher, which garnered much publicity. Producers offered the Fisher family $80,000 for the rights to publicize the case, although that money was used to post bail rather than for personal gain and enjoyment. After numerous revisions, New York adopted a law in 2001, again known as the "Son of Sam" law.〔N.Y. Executive Law § 632-a (McKinney 2005).〕 This law requires that victims of crimes be notified whenever a person convicted of a crime receives $10,000 (US) or more—from virtually any source.〔N.Y. Corrections Law § 500-c (McKinney 2006).〕 The law then attaches a springing statute of limitations, giving victims an extended period of time to sue the perpetrator of the crime in civil court for their crimes.〔See N.Y. C.P.L.R.〕 This law also authorizes a state agency, the Crime Victims' Board, to act on the victims' behalf in some limited circumstances.〔N.Y. Executive Law § 632-a(2) (McKinney 2005).〕 Thus far, the current New York law has survived constitutional scrutiny. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Son of Sam law」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|