Netflix's 'Dahmer' backlash highlights ethical issues in the platform's obsession with true crime

We all love true crime. It’s one of the most fascinating genres of modern entertainment. It is also an ethical minefield. Yet we can’t help but gobble up every morsel of this genre that Netflix loads up on our plates.

As of 2022, true crime is one of the most popular genres on Netflix. Between July 2020 and March 2021, Netflix released 18 true crime related shows – and that number has only increased since. In fact, if you go on Netflix’s true crime page right now, you’ll see about 40 original shows right there for your viewing pleasure. 

With shows like Into the Deep and The Stranger, and the countless documentaries like Don’t F**k With Cats, Catching Killers, Making a Murderer, Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, etc. that have come out within the last couple of years, Netflix has essentially become synonymous with this genre. 

While true crime is proving to be one of the fastest growing areas of entertainment among younger generations, it also brings with it a slew of ethical concerns – especially for Netflix. 

In Sept. 2022, Netflix released a 10-part series co-created by Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan about serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer called Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, which starred Evan Peters in the titular role. The show was watched for over 196 million hours within the first week itself, cementing its status as the number one show on the streaming platform at the time of publishing. And just like Tiger King in 2020, Dahmer has attracted a lot of attention for all the wrong reasons.

When Dahmer was released, strong criticism came for the shows' portrayal of the victims, even though Netflix claimed the series "will give notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer’s victims a voice." However, family members of the victims have said Netflix did not consult them while making the drama. "I was never contacted about the show," Rita Isbell, the sister of Errol Lindsey, told Insider. "I feel like Netflix should've asked if we mind or how we felt about making it. They didn't ask me anything. They just did it." 

The show has also glorified Dahmer by casting the American Horror Story actor who is well known for playing the creepy crush in the horror television series. Following the release of the Netflix series and Peters' representation of the serial murderer, Dahmer’s actual glasses that he wore in prison went on sale for $150,000.

Lest we forget, Dahmer was a serial killer, necrophile, paedophile, and a cannibal. What might be entertaining for viewers is deeply traumatising for the families of those affected by the crimes being reenacted on screen. 

Navigating the ethics of true crime content is tricky. People online have questioned the need for entertainment channels to continue fetishising  — and even sexualising — serial killers (in the last three years, we’ve seen multiple movies/shows about Ted Bundy alone and notably, at least two of these came from Netflix —  Berlinger's Bundy biopic starring Zac Efron, titled Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil, and Vile, and Joe Berlinger's four-part docuseries, Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes) and how it causes the victims’ families to relive traumatic experiences over and over again. Weirdly, Netflix actually seems to be aware of this, as the company's social team begged viewers to stop stanning Bundy after the aforementioned releases in 2019.

Tweet may have been deleted (opens in a new tab)

Now, people are thirsting for Dahmer by posting TikToks and tweeting about his supposed attractiveness. Again, both Bundy and Dahmer were serial killers who tortured and murdered dozens of people whose families are still alive and can see those gross tweets and TikToks. 

Seeing people thirst over serial killers like this and using their victims’ pain for entertainment can cause severe distress to the victims’ families. 

"Imagine the absolute worst torment that could ever happen to you being turned into entertainment for your friends and colleagues to watch with their favourite party snacks and then chat about, around the watercooler at work the next day," says Iman Gatti, a grief recovery specialist, who witnessed the murder of her mother by her own father when she was just six years old. "The reality for survivors is that we never forget what happened. The pain never goes away and the toll on your mental health is immeasurable."

Where do we draw the line between education, truth, and entertainment? On one hand, by making these shows and movies, Netflix sometimes shines a spotlight on stories that evaluate whether someone has been wrongfully convicted (such as documentaries like I Am A Killer and The Confession Tapes). On the other hand, the portrayals are often exploitative and gratuitous, they typically lean towards a preconceived (and often sensationalist) narrative, and manipulate public opinion — all while morals and ethics take a backseat (as is the case in Dahmer).

Of course, Netflix isn’t the only streaming platform thriving off true crime. Services like HBO Max and Hulu also boast a robust true crime slate. As for dramas, Hulu’s Only Murders in the Building is inspired by true crime podcasts, but the show is a work of fiction and therefore doesn’t have too many real life implications.

Legally, what does Netflix owe to the subjects of its true crime shows?

The thing is, in the U.S., Netflix isn’t even obligated to consult the victims’ families or ask their permission in order to make these shows. 

According to Jamie E. Wright of the Wright Law Firm, from a legal standpoint, all public court records and footage is fair game for the entertainment industry to use without getting consent. So technically, studios can actually get away with not asking. But just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. 

"The ethical issues, unfortunately, do not lie with the victims. 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," says Tre Lovell, managing attorney at the Lovell Law Firm.

"This aside, the interest of the victims sometimes has to be put aside for the larger good of serving the audience, whether it be for entertainment, education, or controversy. Netflix is not in the business of counselling; it is in the business of entertainment. Without victims, malfeasance, murder, etc., there would be no shows," he adds.

Is consent required even if the case is public record like in Dahmer’s situation?

In some situations, consent is legally necessary.

"[Netflix] have to make sure that the original makers and producers of the film have consent, otherwise the deal falls through," explains Dhwani Gadh, a filmmaker based in India. "It depends on the details that are going to be shown in the piece. If you delve into the lives of family members, then you need consent."

It is actually in Netflix’s best interests to get consent in order to prevent any legal hassle later.

"Even though it's not necessary by law, it's generally seen as good practice to obtain the consent of everyone they record because Netflix would not want to waste their valuable time battling with someone who tries to obstruct them," says Lyle Solomon, principal attorney at Oak View Law Group.

In the case of Dahmer, there is no legal liability for Netflix as the story is considered of general public interest and the details of the case are already in the public domain. But the problem occurs when people who are a part of a story claim they have been wrongfully portrayed like Anna Delvey victim Rachel DeLoache Williams, who is now suing Netflix for defamation following the release of Inventing Anna.

"Netflix would have to be mindful of how the individuals in the public domain are portrayed to ensure that the portrayal is accurate and does not paint the character in a false light that could be construed as defamation," says Wright.

Why does Netflix keep making true crime content if it's such a liability?

True crime has an advantage for Netflix: the world already has its eyeballs trained towards it. So, by making content out of real cases, many of which made headlines, the company knows true crime will put butts on the couches. People are curious, and shows like Monster capitalise on that. This genre is one of the streaming platform’s biggest draws. And there is a reason for it.

"Some of these shows and crimes are so out of sorts or just unfathomable, people are intrigued by the mentality behind these crimes. How can someone seem so normal and be so evil? How do relationships play out to the point of deception? In Hollywood, there are usually three big draws, sex, scandal, and deception. True crime tends to hit the mark on all three," explains Tel K. Ganesan, movie distributor and founder of Kyyba Inc.

These sentiments are echoed by Shaun Crummey, a former designer who used to work at Netflix. "Netflix will continue to sponsor this type of content because it is helping push the bottomline of the business," says Crummey, "More viewership often equates to more money and more money creates more opportunities. They want the opportunity to become as profitable, as noticeable, and as dominant in their industry as they could possibly be, therefore they will do what they can to reach that level of success."

Netflix is in huge financial debt. In 2021, Netflix reportedly held $18.8 billion in debt, and according to estimates, it could rise to $20 billion in 2022. And while most of it deals with content partners, it is money that will still be going from the streamer’s pockets. In Jan. 2022, Netflix’s shares dropped by 21 percent and has consistently fallen since then due to the growing streaming competition. And that is one of the reasons it pushes for content that the company knows will draw a large volume in viewers.

"The ethics behind it is the old cliché, ‘it's just entertainment.’ After all, Netflix doesn't feel like they're telling individuals to go out there and imitate what they see on true crime stories, they just see it as a form of entertainment," says Crummey.

What can Netflix do in order to better approach producing true crime content?

While ethics in true crime are usually a grey area — and Netflix isn’t breaking the law by making content out if it — it's important to note that these stories are about real people. When we sensationalise and glamourise these stories and dissect each part of it for our own entertainment, we are exploiting traumatic experiences of real individuals over and over again. And that is where the ethical and moral obligations lie. 

"Companies like Netflix need to do better to care for the families of victims of violence. Stop making superstars out of the worst humans on earth and instead, look to contribute to healing and wellness for some of the most harmed and vulnerable people," says Gatti, "Speak with the victims’ families and help memorialise the victims who lost their lives. Perhaps, even donate profits to these families and aid in their healing as opposed to retraumatizing them."

Netflix has received praise in the past for doing exactly that with shows like Ava DuVernay's When They See Us, which spotlighted the wrongful conviction of the Central Part 5, or docu series like Kelly Loudenberg's Exhibit A and The Confession Tapes. And that is the kind of content that Netflix needs to bet more of their chips on. 

Expanding on the true crime genre has real potential for Netflix to broaden people’s minds, but in order for it to do so, it needs to abandon sensationalising tragedy for entertainment. 

It may not be an ethical obligation, but it is certainly the right thing to do.

Mashable has reached out to Netflix for comment.