Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood is often credited with originating the true crime genre. After hearing about the murder of the Clutter family, Capote travelled to Holcomb, Kansas and stayed there for months, writing about the crime as it developed and was eventually solved. He met the two men who killed the family, and he became friends with (or in love with, according to his close friend Gerald Clarke) with one of the killers, Perry Smith, and even kissed him on the cheek right before he was executed.
The affection Capote felt for Smith is evident in his writing, from descriptions of his physical appearance to the way he explains Smith’s backstory, one of tragedy meant to be sympathised with. If the story of In Cold Blood did not include Capote’s affection for Smith, it would perhaps be a more ethical, very interesting investigative book. It is still a thrilling read, no doubt, but it did lay the foundation for a genre that has continued to romanticise and sympathise with cold blooded killers since the 1960s.
True crime has never been ethical. In the words of a researcher from a popular true crime YouTube channel and podcast I spoke to, “any industry that profits – and can only exist – based on the suffering of others isn’t ethical.” Truman Capote, when In Cold Blood was published in 1965, had made two million dollars in less than twelve months that year. This season of Monster has already had millions of views, and while I can’t find any specific numbers on how much money the Monster series has made, it has certainly been lucrative and popular enough to make multiple seasons. No matter the season, Monster has stirred up controversy.
It began with a season about Dahmer, made without consulting the victims’ families that romanticised the serial killer. In the second season, the Menendez brothers were cast in such a forgiving light that their sentencing was revisited, giving them a chance at parole and potentially, freedom. At true crime’s worst, it fictionalises, sensationalises, and romanticises killers and their crimes that can have real life consequences – whether it be freeing murderers or villanising and condemning innocent people, and almost always negatively affecting the lives of the victims’ families. The third season of Monster, claiming to be a “shocking true-life tale”, follows Ed Gein.
I spoke to a researcher – who has asked to remain anonymous – of a popular true crime YouTube channel and podcast, and asked them if they thought true crime was ethical. They said that they don’t think there is such a thing as ethical true crime; “Any industry that profits – and can only exist – based on the suffering of others isn’t ethical. True crime is profiting off the worst thing that could happen to a person and their family.”
We did discuss ways in which true crime could be more ethical, such as true crime that focused on education of how stay safe, true crime with a focus on bringing cold cases back to the public’s attention – especially for minority groups, and true crime that focuses on encouraging the audience to do their own research and sleuthing, all of which are good in a vacuum where one does not fully examine the implications and effects of true crime.
When I asked if they themselves could think of any examples of ethical true crime, they mentioned that while it wasn’t “the most riveting” version of true crime, families and friends of victims speaking out to educate people is the closest thing to ethical true crime, but that doesn’t garner a lot of attention because it isn’t “sensationalised or overproduced” which is the nature of most true crime.
They also noted that some companies give back, donating money to law enforcement, families of victims, charities, and more, but noted that this feels “icky”. They ended with saying, “I don’t think that anyone could name an ethical industry that’s based on murder. It’s as simple as that.”
Ed Gein’s story has already been told over and over again: he was the inspiration for movies like Psycho and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. You could say that since his story has already been romanticised and sensationalised that it doesn’t matter if you do it again – what’s the difference? This version of Ed Gein’s story has been marketed as a true story.
If you have a story inspired by a real life murder, it is still insensitive and gross, but claiming to be telling the true to life version when you are making a sensationalised, romanticised, and factually incorrect story – that is a truly disgusting, unethical crime.
Leave a Reply