The concept of ‘true crime,’ which is a genre of media that tells the story of a real crime, is nothing new. True crime’s origins lie in the 16th century in England, as literacy rates rose and printing technology developed, found in the form of crime pamphlets most often detailing horrific, gory criminal offenses. The genre continued into the 19th century, with reputable authors such as Charles Dickens and William Thackery taking on the role of the medium, with their respective works “A Visit to Newgate” and “Going to See a Man Hanged” both including and exploring the morbid punishments of the era. It went further still as the present century approached and different forms of media and different wide-spread controversies occurred, such as the Jack the Ripper incidents or the infamous Lizzie Borden murder case. Finally, in our current time period, especially in the last decade, true crime has taken on the form of podcasts, documentaries, television series, books, and even videos online pairing criminal cases with makeup tutorials. 

As society’s ways of consuming media expand and people get increasingly comfortable sharing real, horrifying events in more abstract ways, a few questions begin to arise: how far can this genre go without crossing the line between unethical and ethical? Is it “morally right” for people to be self-proclaimed ‘true-crime junkies’ when the victims of these stories are far from being characters in a story? 

The Likely Reasons for True Crime’s High Demand

To determine whether the true crime genre meets society’s implicit moral standards, we must first understand why so many are drawn to it. While a single explanation might prove elusive, a few common proposals shed light on our interest. True crime allows one to explore unimaginable horrors from a safe distance, allowing listeners or viewers to contemplate perpetrators’ motives while engaging in mundane tasks. The juxtaposition of ordinary activities with chilling true crime stories offers a glimpse into the genre’s enduring appeal. Additionally, human curiosity plays a significant role in our fascination with these narratives, as we naturally seek to unravel puzzles and make sense of the events around us. 

Before assessing the morality of true crime, it is crucial to acknowledge that morality is subjective and exists on a spectrum. For the purpose of this discussion, immorality implies harm to certain groups or the exploitation of others, particularly when done knowingly and intentionally. 

A Possible Beneficial Side 

Advocates of true crime highlight several benefits beyond the genre’s ability to satisfy curiosity. For example, many fans of true crime explain that the content can foster empathy for victims, raise awareness about unresolved cases, and provoke discussions about flaws in the criminal justice system. Some content creators cover stories upon request of victims’ families, who feel their cases were not receiving proper attention, and seek online exposure to gain traction and hopefully achieve justice. Moreover, many true crime shows or documentaries depict survival stories and therefore also present survival techniques that many people might want to know in case of an emergency. 

The Point Where True Crime is a Problem 

However, true crime also holds great potential for harm. The Netflix limited series titled Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, released in 2022, exemplifies this. The series consists of ten episodes that delve into the story of the American serial killer and was exceptionally popular, currently sitting at Netflix’s fourth most-watched series of all time. In interviews, the cast and crew emphasized that the series was deliberately humanizing Dahmer’s 17 victims and avoiding any humanization of the killer. Though Netflix is the most widely-used streaming service internationally and the success of Monster makes sense in that regard, prior to the show’s release, there had already been over 20 documentaries made about Dahmer. How does this story stay so entertaining and captivating that it can be covered over and over with viewers tuning in every time?  

Family members and friends of Dahmer’s victims have come out and asked for filmmakers to refrain from making more content about the murders, and yet, the numbers suggest that many chose not to listen. In the specific example of Monster, the family of Errol Lindsey, Dahmer’s 11th known victim, expressed their outrage over such a popular streaming service creating such an in-depth and raw recounting of the serial kills. Lindsey’s family claimed that Netflix made no mention of the show to them nor the extremely painful scenes they were filming, and the family was not paid a cent for their story. As word of the victims’ families and their heartache regarding the show spread to audiences, an increasing number of people began to point out more uncomfortable aspects, such as the Golden Globes the leading actor Evan Peters received and the fact that as the cast celebrated this win, the families of victims were nowhere to be seen. 

Even more questionable was the response of some fans on the internet. These responses, of course, are not the fault of the showmakers specifically, but are disconcerting nevertheless. For example, shortly after the release of the show, it was not uncommon to see  a fair share of videos complaining that the show was ‘not gory enough’ or that it was ‘too tame.’ One can only imagine how the family members of the victims might feel seeing that the horrific recounting of their loved ones’ deaths was not entertaining enough for viewers. 

This brings up the concept of desensitization, which is the lack of emotional responsiveness to stimuli due to repeated exposure. Monster received an 18+ rating due to graphic scenes of physical, sexual, and psychological violence, entailing that the show includes quite a few morbid and gory scenes, and yet, many are so used to consuming true crime content that it does not phase them anymore. This offsets the potential of true crime to increase empathy for victims and is quite concerning to those who are not desensitized to seeing such crime. At this point, it is hard to blame those who fall under the desensitized category, as the widespread array of media covering horrible, true events is extremely accessible and hard to avoid, especially when services like Netflix continue to produce shows such as Monster. Most notably, the platform just released a second season of Murdaugh Murders: A Southern Scandal, a docuseries covering a series of crimes in a small town in South Carolina in the United States. 

On a less severe note, the aforementioned makeup videos which have true crime stories as narration in the background also pose a question of morality. Many YouTubers such as Bailey Sarian, who has over 7 million subscribers on the platform, have made their online career out of these types of videos. The titles, two of which are “She put his head in a bucket?! WTF is wrong with Taylor Schabusiness!!” and “The Cannibal Couple? She drinks, he stinks. Dmitry Baksheev & Natalia,” are undoubtedly meant to garner more attention and traction on the video, just as most other channels do. However, in this case, it becomes uncomfortable, seeing as many are about serious and horrifying instances. Sarian is not the only example of this recent tactic for views or listens, though, as podcasts, books, and other forms of media all promote themselves as well. Regardless, it is another aspect of true crime that makes it nuanced when it comes to morality. 

The Best Approach to True Crime 

True crime, as is the case with most other genres of media, is not inherently unethical nor inherently wrong. However, considering the sensitive nature of the content the genre includes and the fact that the content of true crime is reality, it certainly has one of the highest if not the highest potential for harm of different types of content on the internet. In any case, consuming this type of media is not indicative that the consumer is a so-called bad person, nor that they deserve to be called as such. However, when the enjoyment or consumption of content includes harassing or affecting real-life people who are already at their most vulnerable state or failing to understand the reality and severity of criminal cases, it becomes more cloudy and tends to lean towards immorality. 

While the multifaceted realm of media that is true crime can have both positive and negative impacts, the responsibility to approach it with empathy and sensitivity remains with both the consumer and the producer. Treating these nonfiction cases as anything but tragedies that deserve compassion and respect is where the problem arises, and this is becoming a repeated offense as the techniques to share these cases become more competitive. This leaves many viewers at a crossroads, wondering if there is a way to go about consuming content that interests them in an ethical way. The best solution is perhaps to research content creators who align with one’s individual morals. There are many articles online, such as this one, which offer creators who either donate profits to victims or raise respectful awareness about groups that are typically underrepresented and unjustly ignored by the media as victims. Simply put, one should be intentional with the creators they support and always maintain compassion and consideration for the victims of true crime.