What are the ethics of true crime documentaries and depictions?

However, the recent documentary about the Menendez brothers released on Netflix was met with negative feedback from viewers, particularly regarding the ethics of portraying real people.

Giselle Figueroa, vice president of the Criminal Psychology Club at Michigan State University and a junior in criminal justice and psychology, said that when filming such shows, directors should be required to understand that the victims being portrayed are real people and Real lives talk about them.

Additionally, Figueroa said although these shows are usually dramatized for entertainment purposes, there should be a clear focus on the victims.

“People like things to go way beyond what they originally were,” Figueroa said. “But when these are real people and real lives, and especially victims or their families who are still alive and have been through these things, I definitely think they need to focus more on the victim stories and make sure that they dramatize it.” They don’t make the victims seem like bad people.

Similarly, Iliana Wilson, president of the Criminal Psychology Club and a criminal justice and psychology senior, said there are ethical obligations because of the nuance of criminal cases and the complexity of history.

Additionally, Wilson said the ethical obligations should be to investigate the facts surrounding the case as well as the victims.

“I think there are ethical obligations to research what really happened,” Wilson said. “I think it's very important to explore their lives, how they were affected, how their families were affected, because I think it's all very, very complicated. Because in these cases, the victims are often not there anymore, and that makes it really difficult because it can become a very one-sided portrayal of the people who did it compared to the people the crime was done to .”

However, Dr. Vivian Aranda-Hughes, an assistant professor at the School of Criminal Justice, said it's not necessarily the filmmakers' job to focus on ethics.

“I think one of the things we have to remember is that these are drama series, that these directors and these filmmakers are entertainers,” Aranda-Hughes said. “That's her job. They are not documentary filmmakers. They make these films and drama series because they realize that a lot of people are really interested in true crime.”

Furthermore, Aranda-Hughes said if there was no dramatization and the shows only showed the facts, it would not attract viewers.

“If they just stuck to exactly what it was, I think it would be boring. I don’t think it would attract people,” Aranda-Hughes said. “So I think as far as the drama series or the films go, ethically I would hope that they try to at least stay consistent with the facts and the situation surrounding it.”

Some responsibility for adhering to general ethics falls on creators who decide to create content about these cases, Figueroa said.

“I feel like in a lot of these cases, especially in podcasts and true crime articles, people tend to say (and add) additional information that wasn't there or give their opinion about the victims when “They didn’t do it like a certain thing they did,” Figueroa said. “So I just want to stay honest about what actually happened and make sure that you take into account the victim's feelings, and not just their feelings, but basically the entire situation, like what happened to them and what…” The trauma they went through is something I think they should focus on.

On the other hand, Wilson said, there is some responsibility on viewers to adhere to general ethics.

“I'm not saying it's like, 'Oh, every time you watch a true crime movie you have to know everything about it on your own,' but I also think that we, like many of us, are grown adults, and They're not “At that point, just like that mindless consumer of information, you have opinions, you have background information on things,” Wilson said. “That's why I think the viewer needs to know, especially with these media portrayals that are not documentaries, that this is not the sacred truth. This is a depiction, and this is being dramatized, and this is what is going to happen.” To be fictional to a certain extent. There are so many different sides that you have to know what is real and what is not.

Aranda-Hughes said showing all sides of the cases is also an ethical consideration.

“You try to gather as many facts as you can from as many places, talk to different people, get public records through the courts, you know, there are a lot of different perspectives,” Aranda-Hughes said. “Otherwise, I don't know if it would really be fair to say that there is only one point of view and only one perspective. And if you use the Menendez brothers, for example, and just use their perspective, that wouldn't tell the whole story. There would only be a part of it.

When it comes to ethical obligations regarding films, documentaries and recreations of true crime, is there an obligation that these films only remain faithful to the story presented by the defendants? Figueroa said it depends on the context of the show.

“I feel like it depends on what the show says,” Figueroa said. “Let’s say it’s a documentary series. If you're going to make a miniseries that's going to be mostly about the true story, I think it should stay true to what the defendants said. But I feel like if you go for the more dramatic effect then you can do it because I feel like everyone has a perspective on what they think happened when they go through court proceedings or case notes reads.”

When it comes to cases that explode in popularity, whether through films or social media, the portrayals can inevitably have an impact on the people involved in the cases. Wilson said she believes the victims' families have been deeply affected by these depictions.

“The victims are no longer there to vouch for themselves. “So they can reach out to those who have been most affected other than themselves, namely their families and friends, and they will be affected by these representations,” Wilson said. “I know that after this (Jeffrey Dahmer) show there was a lot of negative feedback from the families themselves, just because it's like glorifying this man and showing him as a soulless predator, but the show is about it him.” “

Aranda-Hughes said the depictions and media attention could actually benefit both the individuals involved and the public at large.

“I remember when all this happened,” Aranda-Hughes said. “I was 14, 13 years old, as a kid I saw (everything) on ​​the news and back then I just didn't know anything, but child sexual abuse wasn't talked about, especially boys.” It didn't even become popular or discussed it more, or people started recognizing it as a problem, until what happened around the same time (with) the Menendez (brothers), with OJ Simpson and Nicole Simpson, was what really got people excited Attention. And a lot of researchers started doing this, I mean, it really spurred a whole movement.

In addition, Aranda-Hughes said the depictions and media could further benefit the people involved by giving them a platform to express their opinions.

“I believe the media attention in this case benefited the defendants,” Aranda-Hughes said. “If they weren't sensationalized, if they weren't in the media, a lot of people wouldn't be talking about them. There are a lot of people in prison who have been sexually abused or abused, and they're sitting in there. And the media isn't helping them.”

Aranda-Hughes said the benefits of media attention include revisiting cases with new facts, which can help those involved in the case.

“So I think one of the benefits is when we look again at these types of cases, there are a few people in there who, you know, maybe probably should be out, and we missed it. As (a) society, “I think we're failing a lot of people who are incarcerated,” Aranda-Hughes said. “I think the benefit would be that we become more aware of these issues and more aware of what the criminal justice system looks like in this country and how it is not what it should be. It takes a lot of work.”

When it comes to issues and cases where there is a clear divide between viewers, the media can frame the issues in specific ways to influence people's views on those cases. Figueroa said that influencing viewers' opinions comes down to the directors of the films and the viewpoints they imitate.

“I feel like depending on who the director is and how he sees the case itself, he could decide how he wants these characters to play and write the script a certain way so that the world can see them that way, how they see them. said Figueroa. “I definitely feel like the media has the biggest influence on how people view cases and how people view the people portrayed, because a lot of people won't do the research themselves and a lot of people won't pick up Netflix shows.” a grain of salt.

Furthermore, in cases where viewers are divided about who is wrong, there may also be divisions on the question of justice depending on the viewer's opinion. Figueroa said no matter what happens, people will always disagree about whether justice has been served or not and what the true meaning of justice is.

“People are going to disagree about who is right and who is wrong in these cases,” Figueroa said. “Frankly, even in cases where there is a clearly right person, some people will be devil's advocate and come out on the other side. I feel like no matter what happens, people will have their own definitions of justice, just like you.” See, everyone in politics and the media has something different to say every day about what justice really means.