skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 134257 Find in a Library
Title: Crime Doesn't Pay; Or Does It?: Simon and Schuster, Inc. v. Fischetti
Journal: St. John's Law Review  Volume:65  Issue:3  Dated:(Summer 1991)  Pages:981-996
Author(s): J E Dugan
Date Published: 1991
Page Count: 16
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article analyzes the first amendment challenges to New York State's "Son of Sam" law with particular attention to the Second Circuit Court's decision in Simon and Schuster, Inc. v. Fischetti (1990).
Abstract: New York Executive Law section 632-a provides that a criminal must deposit into escrow for the benefit of his victims any proceeds from the sale of descriptions of his crime or stories containing "thoughts, feelings, opinions or emotions regarding such crime." In Simon and Schuster, Inc. v. Fischetti, the Second Circuit Court held that section 632-a does not violate the first amendment, even though the statute imposes a content-based restriction on speech. The court also determined that the statute imposed a direct burden on speech, and it thus applied a "strict scrutiny" standard. The court held that the State interest in preventing a criminal from capitalizing on the sale of his crime story while his victims lacked necessary compensation for their injuries was sufficiently compelling to satisfy the "strict scrutiny" standard. Although the court was correct in finding the statute constitutional, it applied an unnecessarily stringent standard. Amendments aimed at broadening the scope of section 632-a may be inhibited or, if enacted, struck down because of this overly exacting standard. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case on appeal. The Court should apply the standard enunciated in United States v. O'Brien (1968) to determine the constitutionality of section 632-a, since the statute targets nonexpressive activity and only incidentally burdens expressive activity. 72 footnotes
Main Term(s): Literary profits statutes
Index Term(s): Freedom of speech; New York; Victim compensation
Note: From a Symposium Celebrating the Centennial of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (1891-1991).
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.