Mass Murderer Profit From Dark Deed

Should the family of a mass murderer profit from his dark deed? Common sense would say no. So does Aaron Bernstine.

Last week, the state representative introduced a bill that would limit life insurance payouts of individuals who die committing acts of terrorism. The proposal also calls for a portion of the terrorist’s life insurance benefits to be redirected to victims.

“We shouldn’t allow terrorism to be rewarded,” Bernstine said in a news release, adding,  “To me, it’s a no-brainer that victims and their families are the ones who should be getting that money.”

It’s hard to argue with that thinking, and certainly, Bernstine is not the first to suggest it.

In a December 2015 attack in San Bernardino, California, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people and wounded 22 in an attack at the Inland Regional Center before dying in a shootout with police. Farook reportedly made sure that his life insurance policies worth $275,000 — with his mother as beneficiary — were valid before committing the deadly shooting.

The federal government sought to confiscate the $275,000, saying the money should be used to compensate victims and surviving families.

Not long after, a bill was introduced in Minnesota’s House of Representatives, pursuing the same goal as Bernstine’s.

While no amount of money can ease the pain of having a loved one suddenly and violently taken away, it certainly can allow hurting families to focus solely on mourning and coming to grips with a devastating loss. There’s no question they deserve such compensation.Yet one question nags at us. If the family of the perpetrator was dependent on his income, and they are found to be completely clear of compliance in, or foreknowledge of, their breadwinner’s deed, is it fair to deny them the insurance benefit that they may need to survive?

While we agree with Bernstine that no one should receive a reward from an act of terror, we also wonder if anyone should be punished because they are related to the terrorist.

It’s a conversation worth having, and we give Bernstine credit for initiating it.

And perhaps insurers as well as legislators should be involved. Some life insurance policies already make exceptions — that is, refuse to pay out benefits — for suicide or deaths resulting from reckless endangerment. A standard declaration that both are inherent in committing an act of terror also could be an important tool in eliminating any financial incentives a would-be attacker might foresee while laying out his plans.

While we are not advocating a rush to judgment, we do hope the Legislature will take up consideration of Bernstine’s bill in a timely fashion. Sadly, in today’s world, it’s a call that must be made.