The poster for the first season of “Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story” is shown on a television screen. True crime shows like this have led to a variety of concerning effects on their viewers and the people involved. “Viewers have become desensitized to the graphic details present in a lot of true crime content, leading them to treat the cases more as entertainment rather than horrific events that have changed the trajectory of peoples’ lives,” ODYSSEY Media Group Variety Editor Adah Hamman wrote. Illustration by Sam Harwell
Audiences should reconsider the ethics of consuming true crime content as well as the impacts on themselves and others.
When season one of the Netflix original series “Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story,” which centered around American serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, was released on Sept. 21, 2022, it became an immediate commercial success.
It quickly became the platform’s second most-watched English-language series of all time and received nods from both the Golden Globes and the Emmy Awards. Viewers couldn’t help but tune in, hoping to find answers as to what made Dahmer who he was. Was it his family? His school life?
However, something many audience members didn’t consider while watching was the victim. Or, in Dahmer’s case, victims.
Of which there were many. Between the years of 1978 and 1991, Dahmer murdered 17 people, 11 of which were men of color — a fact that many contribute to why it took so long for Dahmer to be arrested. Instead of dedicating time to these victims and their lives, though, “Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story,” glamorizes the gory details of their murder.
Upon the season’s release, several victims’ family members claimed in reports from The Guardian and The New York Times that they weren’t made aware of the show and hadn’t consented to its production. Some even went on
to say that it re-traumatized them. Nonetheless, viewers were undeterred by this egregious violation of privacy, and the show continued to grow in popularity.
Consuming true crime content doesn’t have to be immoral.
Season one of “Monster” isn’t the only culprit, though. “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story”, which was based on alleged California killers Erik and Lyle Menendez, reached the No. 1 spot on Netflix within the first week of its release, despite being “riddled with mistruths,” according to members of the Menendez family.
This, unfortunately, seems to have become a trend in the world of true crime content. Whether it’s YouTube videos, podcasts or documentaries, consumers of true crime have become desensitized to its graphic nature and are prone to overlook the impact on the people involved.
One reason is that the depiction of crime in media has evolved over the past few decades, which has changed the way audiences view criminal activity — from misdemeanors to felonies.
“When (film used to) depict criminals, there would have to be some sort of punishment for it. So, society had that moralistic sort of look at it, (the) ‘crime didn’t pay’ sort of idea. That has evolved, though,” Clarke Central High School U.S. History and Film teacher Drew Wheeler said. “Our relationship to a depiction of (crime) has become more explicit. There’s glorification (of) some things.”
Due to this shift, viewers have become desensitized to the graphic details present in a lot of true crime content, leading them to treat the cases more as entertainment rather than horrific events that
have changed the trajectory of peoples’ lives.
Consuming true crime content doesn’t have to be immoral, though. There are several examples of cases being handled with sensitivity and respect for the people who have been affected. For example, YouTube personality Kendall Rae, who makes videos across various platforms, invites members of the victim’s family to share their experience and donates all proceeds to charity.
To prevent further harm to victims’ families, audiences should seek content that centers their voices and avoids sensationalizing the crimes themselves.
