The name Jeffrey Dahmer has resurfaced this fall as Netflix original Dahmer - Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story debuted onto the streaming platform this September. To Netflix’s great dismay, the show, starring Evan Peters, has been enveloped in controversy sparking self evaluation and outward condemnation of the booming true crime industry that continues to walk the tightrope of ethically and morally sound entertainment.

It’s a…success?

The monster in question, Jeffrey Dahmer, spent the later decades of the 20th century committing acts of necrophilia, cannibalism, and murder. Documentaries, books, and movies have shed light on this man for the past 30 years, dissecting his acts and psychological conditions behind his compulsions. As a serial killer with heinous crimes that have his name echoed across the decades, it's a given that there will be retellings of his story. Except this is not just Dahmer’s story; this is also the story of the 17 young men and boys that had their lives stolen by the very man that these productions highlight. Netflix sought out to correct this narrative that shed light upon Dahmer and left the lives of his victims in the shadows. Their “revitalized” version of “The Jeffrey Dahmer Story” depicts a show “...from the perspective of the victims…” according to IMDB. Upon being named Netflix’s third most watched show, Netflix believed they had achieved their purpose…or had they? Following the show’s release, immense backlash has revealed the many grotesque, hypocritical, and greedy decisions that the streaming platform as well as many other media formats have employed in their over-glamorized depictions of serial killers.

What Went Wrong?

There’s no shock that Evan Peters’ brilliantly vile acting, justified exposure of the racially motivated ignorance of authorities, and compelling storytelling granted the series 856.2 million viewing hours within its first month. Although, its’ entertainment success is no excuse for the disrespectful missteps taken: missteps igniting petitions against Netflix and Lionel Dahmer’s consideration to sue Netflix.

The Intended purpose of bringing the victims into focus rather than the perpetrator lost validity the moment that the title included the name “Dahmer,” exposing the self righteous nature of the series. While they made an effort to delve into the life of a few victims, the majority of screen time was spent on Dahmer’s backstory, granting unwarranted sympathy from viewers. This  decision contributed to the systematic issue of glorifying serial killer’s lives rather than the victim's names. 

The consent of the victim's families was nonexistent. In creating a show based on public record there is no legal requirement to ask permission. There is no permission needed to utilize real names, no permission needed to illustrate the gruesome murders of their loved ones, and no permission needed to retraumatize these families. Rita Isbell, sister of victim Errol Lindsey, is particularly outraged by viewing her exact likeness in the courtroom testimony scene, along with many viewers. Despite the law, there has to be common human decency to recognize that an acclaimed Netflix original is inescapable for these families as pop culture fills social media, the news, and the whispers all around them. 

Compensating the families is also currently a non-factor. With the record-breaking success of the mini series, it would be expected that Netflix would have more than enough profits to share with the families whose trauma is being utilized as entertainment. In actuality, they do not own the rights to their own story; in this world anyone is able to freely paint a facade of you. But, an idolized platform should be expected to set the precedent of respectful boundaries. At this point it is just disappointing; Netflix is advertising itself as money hungry in their lack of care for those they are exploiting.

The Eternal Issue: Social Media

Fan letters sent to Dahmer in jail are no less disgusting than fan edits of Dahmer being posted on social media. Sympathizing and sexualizing murderers is not new within society as cases of the Menendez brothers and Ted Bundy are often glorified online in the name of a “pretty face.” Controlling public reaction and response is a futile task; all speech is free speech, but not all speech is ethically correct speech. We would all live in a better world without thirst traps of Zac Efron’s portrayal of Ted Bundy, and without Evan Peters being labeled “white boy of the month” in response to his portrayal of Dahmer. Alas, behind the mask of social media this is an impossible dream. The over-glamorization of serial killers in social media is a societal disease, but its’ power can be lessened by our direct condemnation of those around us that inadvertently place deranged individuals on a pedestal.

Ethical & Moral Reality of True Crime

Adrenaline rushes granted by the viewership of true crime is next to addictive and we are all captivated by these stomach wrenching stories. They serve as red flag detectors, enlightenment of the criminal justice system, and simple entertainment. Although, in light of the controversial conversations surrounding Dahmer - Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, it is time that this lane of entertainment is evaluated with a closer lens. Ethics and morals can be subjective, but it is widely agreed upon that we need to hold our streaming services to a higher standard, and not lift up any entertainment that horrifically tears others down. These families and the memory of the victims deserve at least that much. True crime is a psychologically fascinating form of entertainment, but before choosing our next true crime show, podcast, or book, there should be further inquiry into how those involved feel about the production. Our entertainment is not equal payment for their pain.

Written by Logan Hansen, Photography: Linh Tran, Social Media: Lindsey Lopez