Amid 'Dahmer – Monster' Controversy, Where Do We Draw the Line With True Crime?

After 'Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story', 'The Jeffrey Dahmer Tapes' releases on Netflix on 7 October.

(Content warning: Some of the content might be distressing to readers)

The true crime genre’s popularity is evident from the sheer amount of true crime content out there – documentaries, films, recreations, podcasts, YouTube videos and analyses.

And this true crime content often ranks as some of the most popular offerings for the streaming services or channels they’re on. However, Netflix’s latest series Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, has reignited a much deeper debate on morality.

When true crime content is created, what do we owe to the survivors or victims’ families? If information is in the public domain, where do we draw the line between recreation and exploitation?

What is the Controversy Surrounding ‘Dahmer’?

Jeffrey Dahmer aka the Milwaukee Cannibal, was a serial killer, sex offender, and cannibal who was sentenced to sixteen life terms of imprisonment. He is believed to have killed 17 men and boys.

In response to Netflix creating the new show, Eric Perry, a relative of Dahmer's victim Errol Lindsey, had shared on Twitter, “I’m not telling anyone what to watch, I know true crime media is huge rn, but if you’re actually curious about the victims, my family (the Isbell’s) are pissed about this show. It’s retraumatizing over and over again, and for what? How many movies/shows/documentaries do we need?”

I’m not telling anyone what to watch, I know true crime media is huge rn, but if you’re actually curious about the victims, my family (the Isbell’s) are pissed about this show. It’s retraumatizing over and over again, and for what? How many movies/shows/documentaries do we need? https://t.co/CRQjXWAvjx

— eric perry. (@ericthulhu) September 22, 2022

Referring to his cousin Rita Isbell’s court testimony, Eric added, “Like recreating my cousin having an emotional breakdown in court in the face of the man who tortured and murdered her brother is WILD.”

There’s More. People Are ‘Thirsting’ After Dahmer

Another facet of the controversy is the public reaction to Jeffrey Dahmer and the actor cast to play the role: Evan Peters. A large number of people online are ‘thirsting’ after Peters as Dahmer, and in an even more sinister way after Dahmer himself.

There are multiple threads calling Dahmer ‘hot’ and ‘daddy’ and people are also sympathising with the killer who brutally murdered several people of colour (some being minors) and queer men.

One could argue that this is not a consequence creators can anticipate but that is categorically false: this fascination (often romantic and/or sexual) for serial killers has existed for a long time. There are several online communities dedicated to fan-service for criminals like Dahmer, Ted Bundy, and Richard Ramirez.

They, and others, often received fan mail in prison with Ramirez also marrying one such admirer. People showed up to Ted Bundy’s trial to support him and even sent him marriage proposals.

With that context, it is even more disturbing that streaming sites like Netflix continue to cast conventionally attractive actors in true crime shows: case in point, Peters as Dahmer, Ross Lynch in My Friend Dahmer, and Zac Efron as Ted Bundy in Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile.

As one Twitter user eloquently puts it, “It’s okay to find Evan peters hot but if you’re thirsting over the actual Dahmer pls go touch some grass and find god.”

Why Do People Watch True Crime?

Often, people believe that a fascination with evil draws people to the genre but the real reason can be much more complicated. Let’s forget about ‘true’ crime for a second and go back in time.

From early childhood, people are exposed to stories of good vs evil: the innocent protagonist vs the dragon or evil step-parent or witch in the woods. The appeal of these, frankly terrifying, stories comes from the assurance that, in the end, evil is defeated.

It’s the same basic appeal that translates to true crime. Some research also suggests that women are more likely to consume true crime content.

Amanda Vicary, a crime psychology expert, theorised that this phenomenon could be attributed to the fact that true crime content can often act as a cautionary tale and help people analyse how they can escape such situations.

Clinical and Corporate Psychologist Dr Michael Mantell, who was also the Chief Psychologist for the San Diego Police Department, told NPR, “Our fascination with crime is equaled by our fear of crime. It's two sides of the same story actually.”

In that sense, true crime lets people enter a controlled dangerous environment wherein they’re not in direct contact with danger.

Women and minority groups live in a dangerous world and this being reflected back at them can act as an affirmation of sorts for their fears when the world is telling them they’re being ‘too paranoid’ or ‘too careful’.

Beyond this too, there’s a wide range of reasons to analyse – the primal need for ‘justice’, the tendency to be an armchair detective (explains the appeal of series like Buzzfeed Unsolved), and understanding the different ways the human psyche can work.

There is, however, a need to exercise caution. Prolonged exposure to true crime content can lead to increased paranoia and higher levels of anxiety.

"If it gets to the point where someone is afraid to go outside or is having nightmares on a regular basis, then it may be a sign to lay off the books and podcasts for awhile."

Amanda Vicary to Huffpost

And What is the Human Cost?

The discussion around Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story brings up the question of the innate harm of true crime as a genre and where the line exists between telling a story and exploiting it for (well) cash.

True crime documentaries have an important responsibility – to accurately depict the reality of the criminal investigations and the criminal justice system as a whole.

In the second episode, Dahmer recounts the story of Konerak Sinthasomphone, and highlights the careless way the Milwaukee police investigated the matter. In fact, Dahmer had admitted that when the cops reached his apartment with Sinthasomphone, his previous victim’s body was still inside.

Several people believe that the police’s attitude towards the case was negatively influenced by the victims’ racial and sexual identity. 

This, and a lot more, can be called out and criticised through true crime content. It helps the audience, too, demand better of the institutions that are supposed to protect them. True crime content also serves as an outlet for people’s stories to be told.

And that’s where the clear distinction lies – there is practically no way to sensitively tell a story about someone’s life without them being involved in it in some capacity.

Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story attempts to portray the heinous nature of the Jeffrey Dahmer's crimes and while it does succeed in pointing out the systemic injustices that plagued the Dahmer investigation, the lens still remains firmly pointed at him, instead of the victims.

Nobody is going to stop making true crime shows or content (that much is clear) but make them with the assistance of those whose lives will be recreated on celluloid; the people who will actually be reliving some of the toughest times of their lives.

Also, tell the stories that need to be told so people are aware; so the grief that so many have felt at the loss of their loved ones doesn’t just become a statistic. But do we really need another Dahmer story or another round of the Bundy tapes?

Just a few days after the release of Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, Conversations with a Killer: The Jeffrey Dahmer Tapes is set to release on 7 October.

There is no dearth of content about them; unless someone somehow finds a different yet important story to tell about the lives they affected (and there will still be several ethical and moral conversations to have about that).

So like, Eric Perry rightfully asked, “How many movies/ shows/ documentaries do we need?”