Ted Bundy, Jack the Ripper, and Jeffrey Dahmer are among the most notorious serial killers in human history. For decades, society has been gripped by their gruesome stories, and the demand for true crime shows has never been higher. Netflix’s recent release of Dahmer — Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story has proved to be no different, quickly becoming one of the streaming platform’s most successful projects as a deeply entertaining and disturbing piece of cinematic excellence. Yet, the show has come with major controversy and highlighted some of the major ethical issues associated with the true crime genre. Many have once again begun to question the necessity of true crime shows. 

True crime shows should not cease to exist; instead, streaming networks must adapt to maintain their goal to entertain while still properly educating the audience and delivering an impactful, meaningful message. However, above all else, the entertainment factor cannot come at the cost of the proper treatment of the victims and their families, for they should be the utmost priority and concern behind any true crime show. 

By far, the most prevalent criticism of many true crime shows has been their often utter lack of consideration towards victims and their families during the making of the show. Instead of consulting the victims’ families, companies go ahead with their projects. As Rita Isbell, a sister of one of Dahmer’s victims wrote, “I was never contacted about the show. They didn’t ask me anything,” further adding, “But I’m not money hungry, and that’s what this show is about, Netflix trying to get paid.”

In February 2020, it was even reported by the Hollywood Reporter that Netflix paid $9 million to secure US rights for their show on Ted Bundy. That is no measly figure: yet, that figure is measly in comparison to the potential dividends. Shaun Crumeny, a former designer who used to work at Netflix, explains that “Netflix will continue to sponsor this type of content because it is helping push the bottomline of business,” adding that “more viewership often equates to more money and more money creates more opportunities.” It is time to put an end to this disgraceful practice, and hold companies accountable. 

Regulators must take action to ensure that companies like Netflix are legally obligated to get consent from any survivors and the relatives of victims. Currently, in the US, companies like Netflix are not even required to consult the victims’ families to create such shows. As one managing attorney at the Lovell Law Firm wrote, “The only obligation Netflix has to victims is to be accurate and factual and not to use anything about the victims that may be protected by privacy laws.” Even if these companies are acting within the bounds of the law, it does not make their actions ethically correct. 

Some may point out the extreme logistical complications involved with a legal approach to holding companies and producers of true crime shows accountable. Netflix would certainly put up a massive fight against any action that hurts their business. But that struggle is worth it. The objective of any show must be to tell the story of the victims just as much, if not more than the story of a villainous and inhumane individual. That requires the involvement of the victim’s families on the show in some shape or form to ensure that the stories focus on the victims and loved ones over the criminals. Only with their approval should these shows ever come to fruition. If they object to the show’s creation, it must be dropped. If they dislike certain elements of the show, it must be altered. The story shown on the screen is part of their own story, so is it not fair for them to have a powerful say in these shows? 

Beyond that, the manner in which true crime shows have depicted serial killers has to change, for the immense popularity of these shows has led to some eerie consequences on social media. Viewers describe how “unbothered” and “unfazed” they were by Dahmer. Several social media users going viral for expressing they “feel bad” for the serial killer, while others have called Dahmer “hot” and said he “could have lured” them into his home. 

The show’s intent may not have been to create remorse and pity for the character, but in the act of centering the story around the serial killer, it glorifies him to a dangerous level. The purpose behind these shows has always been to entertain; hence, the acquisition of celebrity actors like Evan Peters to play the titular characters. However, that desire to entertain can go too far, portraying the serial killer as somewhat captivating instead of outright inhumane. This has been seen in other prominent shows like Netflix’s previous documentary on Ted Bundy, and its sibling docudrama Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile which featured Zac Efron.

The fact is that true crime shows allow for serial killers to become renowned for their murders. They propel the worst of humanity into stardom, when they really should cover them in disgrace. 

But that is not the only way to tell the stories of serial killers. Lindsey Webb, a criminal defense lawyer and law professor explains, “We can both see the power of the narrative and get why this is compelling to listen to, and also say, ‘Wait a second, what are we perpetuating here?’” Instead of telling the life story of a serial killer, these shows should tell the story of the victims. They should show how innocent people were affected by pure evil, and enlighten audiences through accurate storytelling. With the massive audience it garners, true crime shows possess the potential to reform society through awareness and education. These shows should aim to expose the evil in the world today and the weaknesses of the justice system, not project the worst that humanity has to offer into the spotlight. 

True crime is here to stay. What can happen is a massive overhaul of how these shows are done. True crime shows must always prioritize cooperation with the victims’ families to ensure that they do not elevate society’s greatest sinners. The genre must adapt or forever be shrouded in controversy.