In the public consciousness, Jeffrey Dahmer is one of the many serial killers people obsess over. True crime, in and of itself, is a fascinating subject for many; people who desire careers in forensics, online investigators, podcast listeners and more find themselves drawn to the concept of it.
It’s important to wonder, though, is such a fascination ethical? 

The most recent project revolving around Dahmer, at least in the mainstream, is Netflix’s Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story. Allegedly (and I say allegedly because I don’t feel comfortable watching it myself), this miniseries spares no details. It digs into the case, and it seeks to highlight the pain Dahmer caused to the seventeen people whose lives were taken, as well as those who loved them. 

Why is it so divisive, though? 

Well, many articles have gone to show that the friends and families of said victims did not want this series to be made. Many were reached out to, asked for their thoughts, but refused. In the wake of the miniseries, they claimed to have been ‘retraumatized’ by the events depicted, that several events were portrayed incorrectly, and that Netflix neither notified nor paid most of the subjects of conversation. 

One might say that this isn’t valid – that the case has always been popular, why is there a problem now?
There are a few obvious answers. Most notably, there is the argument that there are already so many examinations of Dahmer’s case that we don’t need any more. This is entirely valid. Media corporations seem to be taking the stories of real people and their gruesome ends and making it all incredibly trite. 

An argument less thought of, however, is that this case – and many cases like it – was popular from the start based on insidious reasons. You see, many true crime cases that are popular have something similar in common: the victims are minorities that are less respected by the populous.
In this case, the victims are mainly gay men. At the time that the case was occurring, America was at the tail-end of the AIDS epidemic. Gay and bisexual men became a more convenient target, as law enforcement was often afraid to catch AIDS and would be less thorough and caring in their initial investigations. This was also seen with London’s “Gay Slayer” and various others.
Since these men were from a community that didn’t hold much public respect, it was essentially free-reign for public intrigue. The men and boys killed were, for the most part, dehumanized by their sexualities, so fascination surrounding the case was much more validated. 

Now, this isn’t to say that everyone who is interested in or enjoys true crime is homophobic, or unethical, or terrible people. I myself have an interest in true crime. This piece goes to say that the handling of many cases is often grounds for concern; that the presentation and consumption of some cases is unethical. Perhaps there are a few good examples of media that is Dahmer-centric, but those are drowned out by the barrage of dramatized cash-grabs that we see today. 

What do you think? Do you agree that the ethics are often questionable when concerning true crime, or do you have a differing perspective? Feel free to share your thoughts on the subject.