True crime’s mainstream acceptance is not shocking. Many are drawn to this particular form of media in order to receive, as The University of Law’s Jennifer Schmidt-Petersen describes it, a controlled experience of fear and horror where “the stories of real-life killers can be to adults what films and shows depicting fictional monsters are for children”. Arguments that true crime is exploitative, promotes paranoia or sensationalises violence are not new to any form of adult-oriented fiction or non-fiction, and there seems to be little empirical evidence to suggest that it profoundly influences viewer behaviour. However, there is somewhat more reason to fear the investigative culture that has been fostered in in many communities of true crime consumers. The ‘unsolved’ sub-genre of true crime taps into the attraction of playing armchair detective, picking apart a mystery that law enforcement has been unable to solve. Many pieces of true crime media appear to deliberately elicit these reactions, offering information sometimes not available to the public as ‘clues’ and pointing out unresolved threads in otherwise settled cases to engage the deductive segment of their audience. Speculation is often encouraged, and viewers often set out to find facts beyond what the original media has presented to them. There is a wealth of documented instances of such internet communities getting involved in criminal investigations, or even unearthing new developments in otherwise cold cases. In some cases, this has led to positive outcomes; the efforts of amateur web sleuths were vital in unmasking the murderers of Gregory May and Abraham Shakespeare, among other cases. One notable example emerged in 2021 with the arrest of Paul Flores in connection with the death of Kristin Smart, for which California authorities thanked the creator of the eight-part true crime podcast ‘Your Own Backyard’ for turning up new witnesses for interview. For each of the aforementioned successes, there are many more instances of prospective sleuths hunting the wrong target or taking it upon themselves to engage in internet vigilantism, often resulting in the harassment of victims’ families. True crime’s new popularity has thrown the relationship between journalists and the subjects they cover into stark relief; many content creators have landed in legal jeopardy as a result of coverage that has later been deemed biased or sensationalised, though this tends to come too late for those who have been targeted as a result. The significance of the issue is such that Ashurst has issued a set of guidelines for aspiring true crime series creators, laying out the potential legal ramifications of speculating on real-world events. “Producers must therefore carefully balance the legal risks of publishing the material with the value of telling the story”, the guide suggests. We at Lawyer Monthly would echo the advice. Today, we enjoy ease of access to information unlike any other period in history, but this information is often incomplete or lacking essential context. It is the responsibility of true crime content creators to present their stories with as much integrity as possible, elevating their platform above easy muckraking and urging their audiences to act with similar caution. As more amateur podcasts begin to take on this professional outlook, we hope to see a shift towards greater accountability in the true crime space – and, potentially, a raising of standards for online behaviour that places greater focus on the rights of victims. SPECIAL FEATURE 31 Where is the Harm? Risk and Responsibility
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mjk3Mzkz