In recent decades, there has been no shortage of high-profile crimes piquing public interest. As fascinating as it is to watch criminal trials unfold, it has been just as fascinating to see how creators turn these authentic events into dramatized sagas depicting the nature of these relative offenses.
Based on audience demand, drama is the most popular TV genre in the U.S. and Canada as of 2023 and it’s not close– with a 45 percent demand share, according to Statista. Within drama lies the subgenre of true crime, the epitome of drama.
True crime has a certain draw that pulls viewers closer. These series are often based on or inspired by real-life occurrences which lessens the distance between reality and storytelling.
There are two sides to this coin, fictional television or biographical. One of the longer-running television shows still airing in 2024 is “Law and Order SVU,” a 25-season fictional drama about the New York Police Department’s special victims unit. The show often addresses some of the most heinous crimes, similar to that of “Criminal Minds,” “Chicago P.D.” and more.
The latter is biographical, or biopics. “American Crime Story,” “Love and Death” and “Under The Bridge” are just a few series that have taken well-known criminal cases and creatively depicted them for television.
Nevertheless, is it morally right to portray the trauma of these already public trials, or are they educational and informative? Are the creators conveying a message of awareness and even empathy by retelling the story with a balance of factual accuracy and creative liberties?
The cross-sectional ethics of film and the legal system are murky, to say the least. There are no bounds to what can and can’t be made regarding public information. The worry arises then: With all of the power that digital media holds, is it unbiased for the stories and circumstances of real people to be platformed in such a way? And with a lack of boundaries and the speed at which these stories come out, is it fair to potentially sway public opinion based on creative storytelling?
Brandon Hogan, a professor of philosophy at Howard gave insight into that worry, or lack thereof.
“A criminal trial is kind of insulated in a way that ideally isn’t influenced by movies,” Hogan said.
In the case of Netflix’s “Monsters” directed by Ryan Murphy, it almost seems that with all of the perceived harm in retelling the story, there may have been some good.
The series retells the story of the Menedez brothers, Erik and Lyle, whose very public case was the topic of divide in the early 90s. The brothers, who are currently serving life without parole, were convicted of murdering their parents in 1989.
The public divide, however, came from the individuals who supported their self-defense plea, arguing that the physical, emotional and sexual abuse they endured during their childhood put them in immediate danger.
Decades after the fact, the Los Angeles district attorney motioned to resentence the brothers, a motion that was approved due to new evidence pointing towards abuse. Without more information regarding the timelines of the evidence, people may be led to believe that between the visits from Kim Kardashian, the public outcry on social media and the general interest in this case, the media was a crutch in pushing this action.
In this case, the series left nothing to the imagination. It was unclear whether or not Murphy and his creative team were for or against the brothers, it did not shy away from taking murder at face value, but it also painted a picture of sympathy through its hot and cold representations of the family.
Hogan, a graduate of Harvard Law School and the University of Pittsburgh’s Ph.D. philosophy program, noted that in some cases, these kinds of Hollywood practices could shed light on information that was otherwise overlooked or at the very least help to shape public opinion. The worry of an unbiased opinion affecting the criminals and victims in a legal sense is not as prominent.
“There may be a worry, but I think that the criminal justice system has anticipated that worry and has some safeguards in place,” he said. “I do think it’s good that when movies come out, prosecutors may take a look at something they might not have looked at before.”
As time passes and notions change about certain truths in human nature, reflections are present when hindsight is clear. Perhaps providing points that the people or jurors of the time were not willing to hear.
Similar to his controversial series about Jeffrey Dahmer, Murphy and his team received backlash from Lyle Menedez himself, and spectators who were opposed to the retelling of this story. Murphy defended this, claiming that the subject matter is controversial in its own right but demonstrating all aspects of the story is a necessary act.
“Talking about [sexual abuse] and writing about it and writing about all points of view can be controversial,” Murphy told Entertainment Tonight.
He reflected on his approach as an investigation of the philosophy of justice, stating that it was his responsibility to depict each side of the story to the best of his ability, despite the harm or backlash it may cause to those who are forced to relive it.
The outcry regarding the potentially unethical nature of these series is not just perceived, but a genuine concern to be addressed for some. Anthony Borges, a survivor of the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida took legal action to safeguard himself and others from the trauma of what a depiction like this could do.
Through a settlement deal, Borges owns rights to the gunman’s name. All media, interviews or anything depicting the shooter through his name must go through Borges. This agreement, if anything, is a clear reflection of the damage that these stories do, being that Borges had to take legal measures in order to keep this story from being told in any other context, or giving a platform to the person who took so much from himself and other victims. They allow for the side of the criminal to be seen and heard, with the possibility of neglecting or trivializing the harm committed.
An argument can be made that it gives a voice to those who do not deserve it. The retelling of these stories should be up to those who were forced to endure the trauma, not those who see violence as a means to entertain or make headlines for being the topic of controversy.
There is a difference between settling debates and dividing opinions, and simply telling a story for the sake of sales or interests. It is possible to ethically depict the wrongs of the justice system publically through media, but it cannot be at the expense of the victims.
As important as authenticity has become in the media in recent years, that same conviction applies when the stories are not ours to tell. Moreover, forcing victims to legally recognize their trauma as their own so as not to be made a spectacle of, is unfair in its own right.
Copy edited by Anijah Franklin
