True crime has become one of the most popular forms of media today, with television shows, podcasts, documentaries and series chronicling both fictional and true stories. Although they are usually harmless, these retellings can become problematic when power is removed from the victims and placed on the criminals.
I, too, am an enjoyer of popular crime media. I have watched every season of “Criminal Minds” and enjoy listening to the “Crime Junkie” podcast from time to time. However, after reading an article about the experiences of a Parkland survivor, I’m beginning to question the ethicality of certain types of true crime media.
Anthony Borges, the most severely injured survivor of the Parkland shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Feb. 14, 2018, won exclusive rights to the shooter’s name in a monumental lawsuit settlement in June. Borges has since agreed to share these rights with other survivors of the Parkland shooting and victims’ families. This means the shooter cannot give any interviews, participate in any media appearances or cooperate with any movies, books, TV shows and other productions without their permission. While this may seem strange to some, Borges and his attorney have a well-hashed-out reason for this unique settlement — they want the story to be told by the victims, not by the shooter: “Anthony doesn’t want to walk in his house one day and see a Netflix special that (the gunman) was talking about his thoughts on what he did. This was a way we could shut it down. Anthony ultimately has control.”
In recent years, Netflix and other streaming platforms have increasingly given people their true crime fix with series and films retelling the stories of famous killers and popular actors portraying them. In 2022, Netflix released a biographical crime drama, “Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story,” in which “American Horror Story” star Evan Peters portrayed Dahmer throughout his life and criminal career. Though perhaps meant to be of informative value and to give the public the true crime stories they itch for, this release, along with others of a similar nature, is extremely harmful in several ways. For example, they glorify these killers with storylines that seem to try to justify their actions and by casting famous, good-looking actors to draw in views. Additionally, they force victims’ families to painfully relive the loss of their loved ones, sometimes without any forewarning.
Peters explicitly told creator Ryan Murphy that his one rule going into the series was that it was never to be told from Dahmer’s point of view. While “Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story” may have aimed to avoid controversy, unlike others of its type, its focus on victims is still problematic in a number of ways, namely, the crimes of Dahmer are gruesomely recreated and the experiences during Dahmer’s reign of terror are dramatized. The family members of some of Dahmer’s victims have even spoken out against the show. Rita Isbell’s brother was tragically murdered at the age of 19 by Dahmer. She gave an emotional victim impact statement during sentencing, and that moment is recreated in the “Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story.” While watching the show, Isbell was shocked when her name flashed up on the screen, and an actress who looked eerily like her appeared. The worst part? She was never contacted by Netflix. Isbell was given no warning that her name, likeness and exact speech would be used in this show, and she was left to relive this traumatizing moment of her life all over again. Imagine one of the most vulnerable moments of your life being recreated on a big screen for millions to watch, with the creators and actors making a hefty profit and not even being given a heads-up.
Beyond just the horror of reliving the worst moments of their lives, victims’ families have to face another terrible reality that comes with such true crime biopics — the glorification of their family member’s killers. With sensationalized storylines fit for dramatic television and actors known for their looks, these shows and films give way to fanatics obsessed with these killers. Around the release of the Dahmer series, one could open TikTok and find uncomfortable fan edits of Peters’ portrayal that sexualized and fetishized Dahmer. Some viewers engaged so much with the show that they became completely obsessed — so fascinated with the character’s portrayal that they began to overlook all the horrible things this criminal did. Actions such as these put killers on a pedestal, give them the fame they so desired, even after death, and once more take the power away from the victims and their families and place it into the hands of the killers.
In contrast, some true crime media can provide great benefits and present cases in a new light, such as in cases of those wrongly accused or otherwise mistreated by the criminal justice system. Just recently, Netflix released the second season of Murphy’s anthology series “Monster,” titled “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story,” as well as a documentary titled “The Menendez Brothers,” both of which told the story of two brothers convicted of killing their parents in 1989. The brothers pleaded self-defense due to the sexual abuse they endured from their father. While their stories originally did not affect the court’s decision, some 30 years later, the case is now being reexamined with new critical pieces of evidence supporting the brother’s claims and, potentially, the growing interest in the brothers from the new documentary and biographical drama series. However, the Menendez family can still face negative effects from the documentary, dealing with increased media presence in their everyday lives over something that happened over 30 years ago. This makes the line between problematic and beneficial in true crime media extremely thin and difficult to draw.
Upon further reflection, it becomes much less difficult to see why victims of heinous crimes, such as Borges, may desire that seemingly strange right to their perpetrator’s names — they don’t want what happened with the Dahmer biopic to happen to them. The victims deserve power over the people who did horrific things to them and to reclaim their stories and such true crime media places that power right back in the criminal’s hands, as it was when they were committing their crimes. It is also important to continue examining how we portray true crime media and their place in culture to the public today, not just the portrayal of criminals. Victims and their loved ones don’t deserve to relive the worst moments of their lives, and no criminal deserves to be given glory for their crimes. After hearing these stories, I am going to begin to be more conscious of the true crime media I consume and ensure that I only support those forms that deliberately prioritize the victims over the killer, and I urge you to do the same.
Danica Lyktey is a freshman majoring in psychology.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.