The September release of the Netflix true crime series “Dahmer” — a dramatized retelling of the life and crimes of the notorious American serial killer — has prompted heated discussion over the ethics of true crime media and its seemingly endless production.

From the O.J. Simpson case to the death of Elisa Lam, various cases of homicides, disappearances, and other horrific incidents are the subject of much intrigue in popular culture. Followers of true crime TV series, movies, books, and podcasts have grown into a massive fanbase, with an equally massive presence on social media. Fan-run accounts dedicated to analyzing and discussing crimes can be found on virtually every platform, and some have even incorporated a variety of unique twists that have expanded the community even further. Content creators will monologue true crime cases in the background of videos where they display other hobbies or activities, such as doing makeup or decorating cookies.

Many believe that both the production and consumption of this content is unethical, a discussion which has resurfaced with the release and blockbuster success of “Dahmer.” Supporters of this side of the debate argue that society should not trivialize real, horrific crimes by converting them into entertainment for the masses. Among them, it is also widely believed that at times, true crime fans can forget that the victims of these crimes were real people, with lives and families, who should be remembered for more than simply being a prop in an exciting, high-profile case.

As is the case with Dahmer, many victims still have living family members who can be deeply affected by the portrayal and widespread discussion of their loved one’s experiences, which seem to reduce them entirely to the terrible crime they suffered. In some cases — as with the sister of Errol Lindsey, one of Jeffrey Dahmer’s victims — showrunners do not even consult the victim’s family before portraying them on screen. Lindsey’s sister, Rita Isbell, reported feeling as though she were “reliving it all over again” upon seeing the actress recreate her exact words in a scene that was filmed without her knowledge or consent, and reproached Netflix for turning the tragedy of
Dahmer’s crimes into a profit-generating opportunity.

The film and TV industries have a long history of spinning true crime stories into highly profitable hits. Since the ‘60s and ‘70s, Hollywood and major streaming services such as Hulu and Netflix have pumped out countless recreations of the lives and crimes of the Zodiac Killer, Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez, and more, each captivating the public’s attention more than the last. It has apparently become such a reliable source of profit that the stories of just a handful of famous serial killers — Bundy and Dahmer in particular — can be recycled and reformatted an infinite amount of times.

But many believe the makers of these films and shows are not the only ones at fault. Fans’ fascination with the killers themselves occasionally also lacks basic sensitivity, with some developing such an intense interest in the motivations and psychology of these people that they seem to lose sight of the basic moral wrongness of their nature. Many fans seem to get so caught up in analyzing and, in some cases, even humanizing these killers that they forget that these were real, terrible people.

On the social media app TikTok, there was a brief craze over Ted Bundy among teenage users, who expressed their attraction to the serial killer and even went so far as to claim they wished he could have made them his victims. While most true crime fans may not go this far with their fascination, many strongly believe they should still take care to view both crimes and killers in an objective light, and take into consideration their impact on real victims and families.

On the other end of the debate, several arguments have been raised in defense of the true crime craze. Rick Nizzardini, a licensed clinical social worker, spoke on the topic with NBC News last summer. He claimed, “These shows touch on the hallmark elements of trauma: a sense of powerlessness, a shattering of our sense of safety in the world and the violation of attachments to family, friends and community. This can raise emotions to the surface that often feel dissociated or cut off from processing, but can be helpful for recovery in the right context.”

Thus, some argue that consuming true crime media can facilitate emotional experiences necessary for achieving a sense of peace and stability in the long run. In fact, simply knowing about these horrific crimes can bring true crime fans a level of reassurement about their own lives.

Citing the words of her friend Neil Gaiman, a notable children’s horror and fantasy author, writer and true crime enthusiast Kelly Sue Deconnick told NBC, “[Gaiman] says that kids already know dragons exist; what they crave is assurance that dragons can be defeated.” In the same sense, true crime media can provoke feelings of relief and reassurement in consumers, who are comforted knowing that their lives are far more fortunate than those of the victims featured in their favorite stories.

The ongoing discussion is not likely to be resolved anytime soon. As demand for true crime media continues to rise, and new books, movies, and podcasts are steadily churned out to fulfill it, this discussion will only grow more polarized and more relevant
to our daily lives. For now, the buzz about “Dahmer” gives us a chance to stop and consider our own values and opinions, prompting us to ask ourselves the hotly debated question: is the big business of true crime something to be concerned about?