[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 75 (Monday, May 24, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Page S5792]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FEDERAL SON OF SAM LEGISLATION

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last week we debated the Juvenile Justice 
Act. We had a good number of provisions, especially dealing with guns, 
gun shows, and gun sales that were very controversial. I did not speak 
last week on an amendment I offered to the juvenile justice bill that 
became a part of that and is now a provision that has been passed by 
the Senate. I want to take a few minutes today to describe the 
amendment I offered and its importance.
  Some while ago, I was watching a television program. It was about a 
serial killer, a man who killed four women and one man in Gainsville, 
FL. The program described the book this serial killer has written: 
``The Making of a Serial Killer: The Real Story of the Gainsville 
Murders in the Killer's Own Words.''
  I thought: That cannot be the case. If you murder four or five people 
and are sent to prison, you lose your right to vote and you lose 
certain rights. Do you have a right to write a book and profit from it? 
This television program described the dilemma.
  There was a murderer in New York who was described as the ``Son of 
Sam'' murderer many years ago. He was sent to prison and wrote a book 
in order to profit from his murder. In other words, a violent murderer 
goes to prison and spends his time writing a book to sell to the public 
to make money. Is that a right prisoners have in this country after 
committing a violent crime? Is there a constitutional right to profit 
from a violent crime in America? I do not think so.
  The State of New York passed a statute, the ``Son of Sam'' statute, 
and the Federal Government passed a statute saying that the proceeds 
from a book written by a violent offender who is sent to prison cannot 
be retained by the violent criminal.
  That was appealed and went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Guess what. The 
U.S. Supreme Court said: No, you may not prohibit the expressive 
writings of a violent criminal, because that is a violation of the 
first amendment. I am truncating the Supreme Court decision, but 
essentially the Supreme Court invalidated the ``Son of Sam'' laws. The 
Federal law has never been enforced, to my knowledge, and the State 
laws have been invalidated.
  So we had a circumstance where, on the program I watched, this serial 
killer was interviewed. The woman with whom he apparently is 
romantically involved, who is one of the sponsors of this book, was 
interviewed. It raised the question in my mind: Shouldn't we correct 
this issue and these statutes so the next time this goes to the Supreme 
Court, the Supreme Court will not overturn the law?
  I wrote a piece of legislation, after consultation with some 
constitutional lawyers, that I think does solve this issue and will say 
to any prospective author, some disgusting human being who murders four 
young girls and a man in Gainsville, FL, who now says, I want to write 
a book to describe the detail, the horrible detail of these murders: 
You can write until you are dead, but you will never ever profit, you 
will never profit by writing the accounts of your murders and then sell 
a book and keep the money. Not just you, but your agent, those to whom 
you assign the profits--you will not be able to reap the rewards of 
telling the gruesome, dirty tales of your sordid criminal lives.
  The juvenile justice bill which passed last Thursday has an amendment 
in it that closes the loophole and rewrites the Federal law. It says 
that any individual convicted of any Federal or State felony or violent 
misdemeanor, if that convicted defendant tries to sell his book, movie 
rights, or other expressive work or any property associated with the 
crime--a bloody glove, murder weapon, photos and so on--whose value has 
been enhanced by that crime, then the U.S. attorney will make a motion 
to forfeit all proceeds that would have been received by the defendant 
or the defendant's transferee--spouse, partner, friends, and so on.
  Is this important? I think it is. I think we ought to have a Federal 
statute, and if the Supreme Court said the ``Son of Sam'' statute is 
not valid, we ought to have a Federal statute that says to anybody in 
this country: If you commit a violent crime and you go to prison, do 
not expect to sit in prison and write and profit by publishing a book 
about your crime.
  I offered that in the Senate last Thursday, and I was joined by my 
colleague, Senator Evan Bayh. It has now passed the Senate, and my hope 
is my colleagues in the House will see fit to keep this in the Juvenile 
Justice Act, and it will go to the President and be signed into law.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 
105 are located in today's Record under ``Submissions of Concurrent and 
Senate Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________