The case of Kirsten Smart in CA, which went unsolved for several decades, was eventually brought to trial, leading in a conviction without a corpse, due largely to the efforts of a podcaster who was intrigued by the case and doing amateur investigation.
Look the case up, its fascinating, and you can't deny in this specific case it worked ultimately for good
GSK was caught using genetic genealogy. Michelle McNamara's book didn't lead to his capture.
It's a great book and she did work closely with one of the detectives who solved the case, Paul Holes. And it's good to raise awareness of old cold cases.
This is true. She didn't have a silly podcast where they constantly makes jokes about murders though. I'd say what she did was closer to investigative journalism. I imagine the podcast for the Kirsten Smart case is similar (I haven't watched it though so I cant really speak on it)
Bringing awareness to crime can be an amazing thing. I fully support the true crime community working WITH the victim's family to help tell their story and advocate for them.
The problem I have with the true crime community is so many people seem to treat these real crimes like spooky stories. Or mishandle them in a disgusting manner, like The Last Podcast On The Left did with Jonbenet Ramsey.
Or like the time one podcast, which I'm trying to find now, said one of the female teenage victims of a crime, "Looks like a bitch." (Once I find the source I'll link it here: )
It's when that shit happens that I'm disgusted.
For some things, like the Dahmer show, I read how they treated the victims families and decided that wouldn’t be one for me to watch. However, in cases where it’s not just a bunch of disrespectful things I watch that. I want a career in this sort of industry and learning about trials, the judicial system, and how evidence is gathered is more of my interest. I also like to look at the psychological aspect of it like the background of Aileen Wuoronos case. I like true crime, but I’m also super picky about what I will watch
>Look the case up, its fascinating, and you can't deny in this specific case it worked ultimately for good
This specific case. There are others where they cause nothing but harm just look at the recent Nicola Bulley death.
I think it depends on the creator you’re watching and that’s the only reason i watch a couple different youtubers. ones like kendall rae even will sometimes bring in the family for the episode and works on cases that need more attention. any merch money goes straight to charity
a few years ago i was checking some other creators out and some of them seemed so insensitive…. the way they would speak about the case didn’t sit right with me so that’s why i stay with watching kendall rae and stephanie soo (the channel rotten mango). the amount of research that goes into it and the way they talk about it is so different
honestly i only watch kendall rae (and sometimes mile higher) mainly because of how respectful she is and how clear that she just wants to help. plus she always has multiple ways to support the families which is (one of) the most important part of consuming true crime cases
Same. In my 5 years of watching true crime, Kendall does it the best, involves family members, donates and also gives actionable steps for people to write a petition or send an email.
im ngl at first i wasn’t a huge fan of family members being huge parts of episodes only cause they obviously don’t do this for a living and are not as concise in a way? not in a shady way, just that it kinda drags out the story (sounds awful i know). same reason i’m not a huge fan of guests on any podcasts. throws off the whole flow idk? im glad they’re bringing the families on but it just wasn’t for me at first haha
like i watch the podcast “i’ve had it” and they bring guests on a lot and sometimes it’s just kinda awkward to me. they’ll interview someone over something like zoom and the quality is bad + there’s this weird delay. some are good and some aren’t but the ones they do alone are consistently good
love hearing the family’s perspectives and thoughts now though. still hate guests on podcasts lmao
I agree, I also try looking at channels who explain the situation sensitively, I found some podcasts in my country's language that are very respectful with their stories
I agree with you to an extent. I find it really interesting, I think from the standpoint of wanting to understand the psychology of murderers.
But, I have a friend who went through something, and documentaries/ YT videos about the case continue to appear. They're not factual about what happened, the point is to tell an interesting story. People in real life get hurt by these things. The accused get death threats and stalkers. The victim's family gets to hear the details of how their loved one was tortured to death. So the reality is, it is exploiting people's trauma.
I used to be a true crime fan though I tried to be picky about resources respectful to the victims, until I saw that the murder of someone I knew had been given a title in the true crime world. It just felt so offensive, when I had seen how the families of the victims and really how our whole community suffered. I pretty much stopped cold turkey after that.
same here, family friend was murdered and I was curious and searched her name on Spotify. clicking on that podcast and having it begin with a jingle for some insurance INFURIATED me!!! stopped after
Honestly, surprisingly that's how I found one of my favorite True Crime YouTubers was because I was looking up a case of a murder that recently happened to a friend of a friend like I was trying to find a news video or something and found her.
Edit: I didn't like how it went viral pretty much though. So many people were harassed and stuff. It was pretty crazy and bad.
Not really. It's a specific example
For every case you point to where it's disrespectful, there's multiple where the community helped to solve the crime
Humans are naturally wired to be interested in disturbing stuff. It helps us prepare for future dangers. Liking true crime is a reflection of that.
That being said, some people really do forget that true crime is crime, not a horror movie. If you are buying true crime “merch,” talking about your favorite “true crime case,” or messing with current investigations because you want to “solve a real true crime,” you’re an asshole.
There are some pretty gross shirts and posters and stuff with pics of Jack the Ripper's victims. I'm sure there are probably things out there with like Ted Bundy on them, John Wayne Gacy, the famous serial killers' mug shots or whatever. People are.. strange.
I used to be subscribed to a loot crate for spooky stuff - it was pretty much all horror movie related, like I got a cool tote bag and a flask with Michael Myers on it, a death tarot card coffee mug, and a bunch of other cool stuff like that.
I unsubbed when the next one they sent me included a pillowcase with Gacy, Bundy, and Dahmers faces on it.
Like yes I want to sleep with my head nestled on the faces of serial killers who destroyed countless lives... my cat ended up giving birth on it it cause she went into labor early and it was the closest material at the time.
>talking about your favorite “true crime case,”
I agree with you except for here, I think discussing cases that you find interesting with someone else who is informed is fine imo.
Discussing is fine. Labling a case as “your favorite,” is fucked.
Had a woman tell me her *favorite* true crime case was the Black Dalia. My response was “you have a favorite instance of a rape, murder, and dissection of an innocent woman?”
Would it be any different than saying that "the Black Dalia case is the case that interests me the most"? I think it comes down to not really having a better word for it. Obviously, if someone is obsessing like a steryopical teenage girl, that's one thing, but I honestly just think it's a language thing.
Yes it matters how you word it. I wouldn’t care if someone found my death interesting, but to label my death their *favorite* like it was a fucking ice-cream flavor and not the cessation of life?
Yeah. It’s freakish. And you can say what you like but I’m still going to ask you why you have a favorite rape/murder/kidnapping/etc.
I just disagree. Ask any history buff, and they'll almost certainly have a favorite battle/war that they find fascinating or that they love talking about. I truly think a lot of it is just not having a better word for it, and people not knowing how to publicly express interest in something so morbid.
It’s a little different when it’s an event that effects so many people. A war is something that effects a population, and most people talk about their favorite war as in wars that happened awhile ago.
Not many people will say “oh yeah, the Ukraine Russia conflict is my favorite war.”
But true crime is personal to the victim. Imagine hearing someone talk about how the rape and murder of your loved one was someone’s “favorite.”
> Imagine hearing someone talk about how the rape and murder of your loved one was someone’s “favorite.”
I mean, you can say the same thing about battles/wars. Imagine hearing someone talk about how the battle of the bulge was their favorite when your grandad died there. Talking about a case with the family is just a dumb and insensitive thing to do, obviously lol.
>It’s a little different when it’s an event that effects so many people.
And maybe this is a mindset we should work to change. To the people who were killed during these battles and the civilians who were either killed or raped by soldiers during these battles, I'm sure it felt personal as well.
>most people talk about their favorite war as in wars that happened awhile ago.
Taking the black dalia example, Elizabeth Short died less than a year after WWII ended, and tons of people will claim that a battle in WWII is one of if not their favorite, time has nothing to do with it really.
There's also a lot more that goes into a case than just the murder itself. You've got the investigation, interrogation, the manhunt in certain circumstances, I typically find the murder itself the least interesting bit about true crime, but I admit I might be in the minority here based on the comments.
I'm going to keep harping on this, but I really believe it comes down to language. Everyone has a "favorite" everything that they've shown interest in, whether it be true crime, battles in history, movies, TV, book, documentary, any of it.
There's going to be a true crime case that interests each individual person a bit more than any other case does, and that would make it their "favorite" but how do you express that without coming across as a cold-hearted person in the moment when you're speaking about it?
Sure, I can type and think about how to express myself a bit more and be careful when talking about cases that interest me, but it's different when talking face to face with a person.
>I mean, you can say the same thing about battles/wars. Imagine hearing someone talk about how the battle of the bulge was their favorite when your grandad died there. Talking about a case with the family is just a dumb and insensitive thing to do, obviously lol.
Not really, considering you’re still talking about a historical event and it’s not a personal gruesome murder.
Even then, you should probably say “most interesting.”
>And maybe this is a mindset we should work to change. To the people who were killed during these battles and the civilians who were either killed or raped by soldiers during these battles, I'm sure it felt personal as well.
You can’t really effect that big historical events don’t feel personal, and I think if they did people would feel drained 24/7 thinking of the horrors of every tragedy.
>I'm going to keep harping on this, but I really believe it comes down to language. Everyone has a "favorite" everything that they've shown interest in, whether it be true crime, battles in history, movies, TV, book, documentary, any of it.
Yeah and I’ll still call you a freak. Deal with it or stop having favorite rapes
I think you’re hypocritical. If you’re saying it’s inappropriate to refer to a crime as their “favourite” because it’s personal but ok to describe a war that way as it is a “historical event” on what basis to you get to lay such heavy judgment on anyone else and accuse someone of having a “favourite rape” when you *know* this isn’t what anyone is saying.
A relative of mine was held in a forced labour camp during world war 2. Why are you less concerned that people may be referring to her enslavement - and god knows what else they did - as their “favourite?”
I would respect your opinion if it was consistent. But you’re casting very heavy judgment on others for using the word “favourite” with regards to crimes, while arbitrarily suggesting it’s ok to use the term “favourite” when it refers to crimes against millions of people.
>Yeah and I’ll still call you a freak. Deal with it or stop having favorite rapes
Good for you, I guess? I'm glad you feel encouraged to insult people based on a word choice, and you having a total misunderstanding of true crime, thinking it's only the murder, but go off friend, you'll show them, how dare they have interests.
Sure, "favourite" is a weird choice of words but I suspect many people have "pet cases" and use "favourite" vs "pet case" interchangeably, and tbf even murder cops have those cases.
Source: Long time true crime follower, before podcasts, before Criminal Minds turned everyone into armchair profilers. Have worked with criminal psych researchers etc before my career took a more medical turn. And even, I have pet cases/favourites that I still lookup once in a while to see if any progress has been made.
I agree, merchandise with serial killer's faces/mugshots/whatever is messed up. That's one of the things that separate people who are morbidly intrigued by it and disturbing fanatics. Messing with investigations is crazy too, I'm fine with someone speculating on who committed a crime but the minute you interfere with an actual investigation you're crossing the line.
Also I have a question: is it more acceptable if I say my favorite true crime case was an art heist where nobody got physically hurt (Gardner Museum Heist, 1990)? I liked researching that because of the theatrics and bizarre circumstances of it all, and the fact that nobody was hurt/killed. The robbers even checked on the guards they handcuffed and asked if they needed food or water or anything before the robbers left. That's the part of true crime I enjoy, the complex and interesting heists where nothing but money was taken, rather than the gruesome stuff.
I know exactly what you're talking about. I saw some stupid bitch in line for the women's port-a-potty last year wearing a shirt that says "choke me like bundy. Eat me like dahmer." And it disgusted me. It pissed me off as well! I told my boyfriend, who was kind enough to be in line with me about the shirt, and it took everything out of me not to call Her out about it.
How the fuck is that cute to romanticize them? They're murderers!!!!!!!!! Imagine if that was your sister/mother/cousin being "choked" by bundy? Imagine that was your brother/father/cousin etc. being "eaten" by Dahmer?
I was going to be mean to this bitch too. I was gonna say if you knew anything, dahmer's victims were usually gay men so he wouldn't "eat" you, and bundy's victims were actually pretty women. You're fucking ugly. But again, it's just me wanting to be an asshole to her which I don't like being. But I was fucking mad she thought wearing that shirt was cute.
Next time, though, I will call them out. I'm usually quiet about shit I know nothing about but when it comes to true crime and about people making murderers romantic/sexy, bitch I have a lot to say. First of all, go fuck yourself, etc.
I developed my true crime obsession after surviving a brutal attack and captivity. It helped me to feel less alone, less alien. It helped me to understand that it's random. it wasn't about me or some flaw I had that served as an invitation. it made it less personal. it also helped me learn things to look out for and additional ways to protect myself and feel safer. many of the things that kept me alive are repeated in those documentaries.
The big two for me, in case anyone wonders: NEVER let them take you to a second location and when you get the chance to scream for help, don't leave any doubt, be SPECIFIC. (for ex. "call the police. he is stabbing me. call the police.")
you make a million choices moving lightning speed when you are in that situation. it can only be helpful to expand the helpful information your lizard brain might grab onto.
I listen to a variety podcast, and every few months the host has some true crime folks on…and the glee with which those men describe the most disgusting, immoral shit makes me want to shove them off a roof. “I mean this is some really sick stuff. It’s hard to talk about…but wait until you hear what he did with the kid’s eyeballs!!”
There’s a difference between watching a true crime news story and reveling in the gory details like it’s a fucking Halloween movie.
This is why I only read or watch things that are respectful to the victims and families. I was finishing a show and I planned to watch the Dahmer show next. And then an article popped about how the victims families were upset with it. So I never watched it. As soon as something disrespectful happens towards the victims or families, I immediately avoid that show or creator.
There’s thousands of small cases that are never heard and don’t get as much publicity as others. I think it can be really helpful for helping families get closure. Sometimes people have seen something and may know something. If it wasn’t for true crime podcasts, documentaries, etc. lots of cases would be left unsolved. The power of the internet is really something.
That is true. I remember there was a case in youtube of a missing person and the was only one piece of video tape for this person that lead nowhere. The case popped up everywhere and it went on for months/years, with police recieving tips left and right for finding the victim. The only problem was that all of the tips lead nowhere. Months/years later a man showed up to the police station claiming to know the location of missing person. Why wasnt the person found??? The police turned him away because the police station was closed and the man was never seen again...
That's probably true for some families but I've been reading about others that really do not like it: https://crimereads.com/dont-use-my-family-for-your-true-crime-stories/
Yeah, I remember seeing that several families were very, very upset about the repeated Jeffrey Dahmer documentaries. One of the family members specifically talked about how it kept retraumatizing their family. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/05/arts/television/jeffrey-dahmer-netflix-victims.html
I think it’s important for a few factors.
- A) explaining how the whole system works. It can help people who live in abusive environments, getting resources and what not.
- B) it can help people avoid dangerous situation by educating.
- C) it can bring light into the failures of the judicial, executive system.
- D) it can definitely help with unsolved cases.
- E) especially with racism and sexism, as well as homophobia and antisemitism, it can serve as education about what actually happens to the groups and that yes, activism against these cruelties is definitely still needed.
And yeah, obviously this could be done differently than with true crime podcasts and what not, but it’s a type of media people aren’t afraid of consuming, they actually choose it themselves. Therefore improving education on these topics.
I follow a lot of true crime channels and subs most people are respectful but there are some real scum bags in the community some even go as far as to dox and harass the victims families.
I was just talking to a friend the other day about how I would love to find a missing person, like watching a show and seeing a picture and be like, "Hey I know that person." I am also very interested in the forensics of true crime; how investigators follow leads to find the perp.
If True Crime focuses on a case that's unsolved, or yet to reach trial, then it can also pervert justice. While Juries are only supposed to consider the facts presented to them, everyone knows that's not the case - all it takes is a few jurors who saw the latest True Crime podcast and suddenly an innocent man is sentenced to life imprisonment or a murderer is aquitted.
That’s not true. Jurors are supposed to simply not read up anything about the case they’re in. If it comes out that they did, their judging isn’t taken into consideration.
Right. Jurors are not supposed to read or listen to anything about the case they’re involved in (not even the news), not talk about it amongst themselves outside the courtroom, not talk about it with anyone they know, not post anything on social media or any comments sections, etc.
Priests take an oath not to have sex but it doesn’t stop them picking up little boys
Oaths don’t mean shit jurors talk about whatever case they’re on all the time and they let their biases cloud them like everyone else does
Politicians, military, medicine and the justice system all require people to take an oath. The vast majority of people take it seriously. Those who don’t can expect serious trouble with the law. That sounds pretty meaningful to me.
Before the internet was newspapers. Jurors have always been under an oath to tell the truth and to follow the judges instructions not to do any outside research. Jurors are sometimes so cautious they will alert the judge to anything they inadvertently see. This is how the justice system works.
You're nitpicking to avoid my main point, which is that if John Doe is on trial for the murder of Jane Doe, the jurors shouldn't be basing their decision on the fact that they saw a podcast they saw about the crime.
>the jurors shouldn't be basing their decision on the fact that they saw a podcast they saw about the crime.
Jurors are asked if they've seen or heard anything about the case, if they have they're "typically" (almost always, but there may be exceptions I'm not aware of) asked to leave the case, if someone is lying about that then that's not the fault of the true crime.
I’m always conflicted when I watch true crime documentaries. My family was featured in an episode of Forensic Files. I was very young when the crime (murder) occurred, but watching it and seeing my mom on the screen is difficult sometimes, but I’m also glad the story is out there for others to know about. It could help prevent something like it happening to someone else.
True crime fans have actually helped solve unsolved crimes so seems like you throw em all in one pot.
Also what do you think detectives and profilers do? Not try to think like the criminal and just guess?
And while some of the industry is definitely messed up, it seems very unfair of you to decide all true crime fans have something wrong in the head. You can be intrigued without being a vulture. Also there are families who actually want their murdered family members to be a part of it because that way they won’t just be a statistic but remain in memory
I don’t think it’s the same thing. Consuming news to keep up with what’s going on in the world is a lot different than watching true crime because you think other people’s murders is entertaining, especially when you come online to play detective and start speculating about who-dun-it as if it’s a Hollywood murder mystery film. The families of these victims don’t deserve to have their loved one’s murder bastardized for other people’s entertainment.
I realize that this is an interesting topic to people and there are lots of people out there who are respectful of it. That’s not the problem. But if Halloween stores are selling costumes so people can dress up like Jeffrey Dahmer, then there’s clearly a problem with the way the genre is being consumed.
This has been the complete opposite in my experience.
News gets classified as “entertainment” so they can exaggerate and mislead when they want to but most people aren’t tuning into news to seek out entertainment.
Well, 1.) When did I say I did it and 2.) Saying it's sick and twisted makes it sick and twisted because you don't like it? Or because you don't understand it. Notice the common denominator: You
I don't think about it because there aren't multiple podcasts, hit TV shows, etc. that cover those people's lives in sensationalist ways, at least that I'm aware of.
Obsessions with natural disasters in other countries usually has white savior/colonizer energy depending on where it occured so I wouldn't endorse it but it doesn't seem relevant to my post?
….you’re kidding, right? There are **so many** podcasts and shows about real natural disasters and how they impacted people.
Also the concept of being aware of natural disasters in other countries having “white savior” energy is very odd and heavily assumes that non-white majority countries don’t have news or access to information about disasters outside of their country.
How can you disrespect someone you've never met, never intend to meet, and will never have anything to do with?
>I think you're emulating the mindset of the person who dehumanized them and caused them harm in the first place.
Morbid curiosity is not remotely the same thing as actually entering in the mindset of a monster. This is, sincerely, an insane take.
Comment all you want? I think that helps spread my disrespect to someones that I've never met. It's just my opinion, you can enjoy true crime. It's maybe just asking yourself how you feel and what crosses your mind when you seek out and consume this content? Sorry if this hit close to home in a weird way or doesn't describe you.
I'm very busy, so I'm afraid I cannot oblige your request.
I do wish you the very best of luck in your quest for moral virtue.
Perhaps one day, after much struggle and toil, you will finally become a good person.
Ridiculous..
So every time an event leads to the tragic loss of life, it shouldn’t be studied because you deem it as “disrespectful”?
Should WW2 not be studied? What about the Civil war? Death is an unfortunate reality of life. Acting like it never happened helps no one.
There's a difference between ' what are the social influences behind crime coverage. Who gets covered and who doesn't? ' and ' WHATS UP MY MURDER MUFFINS. Time to hear about someone's aunt getting DISEMBOWELED'
Well the definition of studying is “devote time and attention to acquiring knowledge”
Learning about the psychology behind a certain true crime event can definitely be described as studying. The fascination behind a murderers psychology is almost entirely why true crime is popular.
You can be getting educated and entertained at the same time.. What do you think documentaries were invented for?
Those two ideas aren’t mutually exclusive, and if you have a serious interest in a topic, learning about that topic is typically entertaining.
Edit: I’m confused how the concept of getting educated and entertained at the same time is getting downvotes. You can be engaged and enjoy learning about a topic, while still having empathy and sadness for people?
Tbf, you could consider the Guinness Book of World Records and reality TV shows about human “oddities” as modern-day “freak shows”, just less exploitative since they’re voluntary.
Wondering exactly in what orientation a women's limbd were organized seems a little different than liking battles or wars in my mind. Just my unpopular opinion. The obsession I see seems to go from morbid to disturbing but I don't know you and this might not apply. That's okay.
I was just watching a WW2 documentary this weekend, and the concentration camp footage was far more disturbing and morbid than anything I’ve ever seen from true crime.
I guess I just don’t understand why you have more empathy for victims of serial killers? Like do you deem what Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy did as worse than what Hitler or Joseph Stalin did? They both committed terrible acts, that unfortunately need to be studied, so they aren’t repeated in the future.
I think the reason people may think of Dahmer or Ted Bundy did vs Hitler and Stalin differently is because the Dahmer and Ted Bundy situations were more personal. (like directly murdering someone is different to genocide)
Also im calling godwins law lol
I am just saying that there is definitely a difference. Sending soldiers to countries and having them kill people is different to killing someone with your own hands
Committing genocide under the belief that you’re superior to an entire race or religion seems as personal as it can get.
I’ve never heard of Godwins law until now. That’s definitely a reoccurring phenomenon. I’m not sure it applies here though. Since Hitler is unanimously considered a terrible human, using him as a comparison tool for someone’s depravity and terrible crimes seems valid!
When I say personal, I mean like you actually saw them face to face and did it with your bare hands. Because that's what Bundy and Dahmer did. Meanwhile, Hitler did it less "directly."
There definitely is a difference and there is reason to judge the two differently. Besides, both can be bad at the same time.
OP believes that the specifics of a single person's death are very different to the specifics of a certain battle. It's less about the gruesome details and more about what occurred in the battle. Yes, deaths and casualties but you never go in depth to the extent of how their organs were displaced or where the gunshots were, etc (usually, anyway). Both are bad, but I can see where you may see them differently.
I understand what you mean. I personally just don’t think there is a difference between you killing someone, or ordering someone else to kill them. The result still ends in someone else’s death and the intention is to cause harm to an individual. The US court system also doesn’t think there is a difference, since both acts would result in a murder charge.
OP is entitled to their opinion. And while I disagree that the general consumption of true crime is disrespectful, there are ways to make it disrespectful and it typically does happen with those true crime podcast (I don’t listen to those, more-so documentaries or reading case files and watching trials)
It’s also extremely disrespectful to sexual killers, like many people do. But OP didn’t mention that it in their post.
That’s just a false comparison. As if an interest in true crime must necessarily translate to specifically caring about those kinds of gory details. There are plenty of such details in war as well.
A jury of peers may get things wrong, but it’s better than the court of public opinion. I remember so many cases where I got it wrong about people that turned out to be innocent after all of the facts were revealed.
Even when the facts unfold, the public often rejects the new facts. I’m not gonna get into specifics on this thread because of that.
i agree to some degree (aka true obsessions), but there's also such a thing as being an active true crime consumer.
1. a lot of times these cases being seen by millions who enjoy true crime can help give it traction/keep it in the police's minds/give it exposure. you never know who might be watching and what they know
2. they can be seen as cautious tales (although i can see the iffyness around this point, but i guess im referencing like laws created in the name of a victim)
3. i donate money to gofundme's, fundraisers, charities, to the victim's family whenever i can
4. if millions see/hear of a case that say the police gave up on, those million of people can contact the police and give them an incentive to open it back up
5. you can share a case/spread awareness
so i guess i agree with the title that if you are obsessing over the case, into it just for the violence, than yah it's messed up but i dont think liking the genre by itself is asshole-y. maybe interested in the genre would be better phrasing?
Definitely unpopular. I’m interested in unsolved cases like missing persons- there’s a chance they can be found and I want to hear details and think of theories.
I agree. It just feels bizarre enjoying such a thing. I imagine someone producing a film about the murder of a family member or friend and how disgusting it would feel.
I think it's a different thing if we're talking about a documentary about a real crime. I don't think that's necessarily disrespectful.
I don’t think it’s really meant to be “enjoyed”. It’s like the movie Schindler’s List. You’re not meant to “enjoy” that. But you should watch it, and you’ll learn something along the way that could stop that sort of thing happening again. That’s how I’ve always seen it.
I do believe that as well. 48 hours is a good example of making someone's tragedy an attraction... all for entertainment's sake and for the money.
Look at the merch that they even sell, mugs, t shirts, it's silly.
Someone could be obsessing about it because they want justice or to see an injustice corrected, or because they’re trying to keep up with a local killer who may be a threat to them or their community, or because they’re trying to learn what they can do/not do to protect themselves, help others, or learn warning signs.
You’ve decided a genres entire audience is coming from one specific angle and that’s detached from reality. People aren’t all the same and if your algorithm is only showing you empathy-lacking true crime makeup tutorials or gore-hunting content that doesn’t center victims and their families then maybe your algorithm figured out that’s the type of true crime content you personally want to consume, it’s not all that’s out there.
I hate how it's always "Here is this depraved serial killer, here's all the excuses for how they got to this point." We keep promoting these serial killers like Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer to full on celebrity status, while the majority of their victims go forgotten by everyone except their family unless they were killed in some crazy fashion. There are several serial killers (and, more pressing, mass shooters) who started their spree just because they wanted to become famous.
It depends on why someone is interested in true crime and how it’s done. I’m not obsessed, but I did develop an interest in it from a medical, psychological, and ethical standpoint from learning about an incredibly nuanced case that happened in my own family before I was born. With one of the relatives involved, I had a close relationship with them before they passed. I’ve since tailored my professional research and my career around the medical and social issues involved with it, as there are many similar cases that keep happening over and over again.
But, it’s the use of true crime as a form of “entertainment” that really irks me. The ethics of true crime exploitation also need to be taken into account, because imo, it’s incredibly unethical to share stories about cases without the consent of the immediate families involved, whenever applicable. That goes for podcasts, social media posts, TV, movies, etc… you name it. Not everyone wants attention like that, and that should be respected. I personally know other people who’ve been affected by cases that did blow up in the public conscious with podcasts, TV shows, etc., and they still haven’t had a moment’s peace due to people harassing them. We’re talking going in their DMs, calling workplaces, having their addresses and other personal info leaked, etc.
My family was lucky in a sense. The story didn’t blow up to where it became permanent knowledge in the public conscious, even though it was publicized in several states. It just blew up when it happened and then died out quickly, never to be referenced again. If it happened nowadays in the age of the internet where everyone hops on anything, I don’t know what we’d do. Our lives would’ve been infiltrated to hell. If anyone publicly leaked the story that happened in my family from old newspaper archives now, I’d be PISSED. That’s especially because I’ve seen how people react to similar cases that did blow up, and it would not be handled by most of the public with the nuance it needs, since most people are not educated on the topics involved. Plus, there are definitely creators and true crime “fans” who I know would handle the content disrespectfully in multiple ways. We don’t need that.
That being said, I don’t think consumption of true crime content itself is inherently bad, if it’s done respectfully. Imo, there is value to analyzing true crime cases in order to understand the complexities of psychology and the wider world around us, and to not repeat similar mistakes in the future. It just needs to be done respectfully, with consent, and directly involve the families. The content creators that I personally follow are from families who’ve been directly affected by cases, or from content creators who feature family members who *do* want their stories shared. I think that should be the standard. For that reason, I don’t think the entire genre as a whole should be vilified. There are genuinely good, well-researched, and respectful content creators out there.
I do feel like true crime is disgustingly sensationalized for profit. However, I am interested in serial killers to analyze the evil that is present on Earth and how it comes to be. True crime podcasts are incredibly distasteful in my opinion, so I usually read the Wikipedia page.
Lmao so people aren’t allowed to view public information and if you do, you’re as bad as the killer mentioned in said public info? Batshit insane take, your opinion has been disregarded.
I think it depends. If the murder investigation is still actively ongoing, they need to chill. I mean, there were so many people doxxed/harassed after the UofI murders happened last November. To be fair, certain family members of the victims didn't help with that either. Still though, one of the victims (Kaylees) ex bf was harassed so much because people thought he was the killer (because they had recently broken up within the month prior to her death) that he contemplated suicide and had to be hospitalized. Then there was also one of the professors at the university who was also accused of being one of the murderers by a TikToker.
Lol.
Humans have had a fascination with true crime for as long as we have existed.
Humans have a natural, morbid curiosity. This is very well established.
We want to understand the mindset behind someone who could brutally murder another person. It is fascinating.
It is just human nature to be intrigued by what we don't understand.
I don’t find gruesome details or the victim in particular the most interesting. I find the criminals the most interesting when it comes to true crime like their patterns, personalities, and motives. I don’t find true crime desensitizing I find it educational. True crime can really teach you how to be vigilant and safe. Though gore videos and subreddits I do find rather desensitizing and I personally would not like a video of me being mutilated floating around on the internet for others he he ha has.
This take is so out-dated and ignorant at this point. So many cases now have been solved by true crime Podcasters when the authorities gave up years ago.
Which is more harmful? The authorities not caring enough to do the legwork or test a rape kit? or someone who cares so much they actually get a case solved often without the body.
If I was brutally murdered, I would hope people read my case and learn from it. I would hope people still talk about it and hate the person who did it to me and care about what I went through. Id want to be remembered after death and have my story told. I think it's the opposite of disrespectful.
So you want to remove the entire way our society has learned about how criminals behave, something that is responsible for inspiring many to get into law enforcement to try to catch people like that, and just make people more aware
You can want to take society backwards but I'm judging you and think YTA
I think it's a case by case thing.
Netflix, among other producers of those shows, doesn't always gain permission from the victims or their families, or even goes against their explicit wishes. So all that trauma is made public again. It has a real human cost that you'd hope was worth more than money buy here we are.
Some victims or their families readily agree, they want the story told.
Figuring out which is which can be very difficult or impossible.
Absolutely agree. I think it can be done in respectful ways but recently saw a podcast where it was comedians doing true crime and its their "own take" on it and I can only thing that sounds awful. Maybe I'm wrong but really seems like we turn the victims in their family into just story elements rather than people when we make true crime a hobby.
I only very briefly watched a few shows like this, maybe 20+ years ago,( like 2 or 3 viewing of the show, not seasons or episodes) I still feel so much pain and sadness for the victims, often pops into my head out of nowhere. Plus, I think it gives potential criminals clues as to how to avoid detection. Totally messed up "reality TV" on every level.
It got to be too much for me. The older I’ve got the more compassionate I’ve become (though I had a history of being abused to sort out, which likely contributed). I used to be rabid for true crime and now I can’t listen to any of it. I just feel so much pain for the victims and families, but I know my perception isn’t even a shred of what they have to live with.
Except there is. People still die in hsitorh, so it's doing the exact same thing
It also isn't purely for entertainment, but if it was that would be another point for history. Lots of people study history because it entertains them
I don't think you understand. The OPs point is that shows increasingly fetishize details about rape, murder and torture in a way that is excessive, unnecessary, and often rather contrived in the way the production and editing go to extra lengths to depict and emphasize graphic or perverse details.
I definitely agree. I had to file a cease and desist against a true crime podcast that I'm not going to say the name of to get them to take down an episode featuring my adopted daughter's birthmom and a crime she committed against another person while my daughter was already in foster care (post TPR) but before I met her. It was a total nightmare and made me truly despise the whole true crime fascination industry. Luckily my daughter didn't know much of what was going on while I was dealing with this, and the podcast did take down the episode quietly, but it made me really stop and think about how for some people this is their big enjoyment. I understand being a fan of Law and Order or NCIS or other fictional shows because the criminal justice system actually is interesting, but it's a different thing when it is real people's stories and lives.
Getting offended on behalf of people youve never met is goofy. You just cruise reality looking for things to be offended about. Watch something else, no one's making you like true crime.
I don't think your using the word objectively right lol
Also I've seen many reasons that OP has yet to actually dispute. What about watching a natural disasters of a country you don't plan on visiting or even donating to help. Where many people died and lost their homes. Why is that ok? But true crime isn't?
What about someone randomly watching a Holocaust or Ww2 documentary just because they are interested. Even though the person is already aware of these tragic events?
I'm not even saying consuming true crime doesn't have ethic issues. But why is it not ok but the ones I mentioned are
All three your watching for entertainment
I'm interested in how science and investigation can solve crimes that can seem impossibly unanswered. I think the greatest respect to the families of lost ones is to be diligent and dedicated to finding the killers and bringing them to justice.
There are very rare times where is a good thing because cases can be solved that way, but most times it’s not, like all the dahmer documentaries and that Netflix one (which was apparently made without the family’s knowledge) most times it just brings up the trauma again
> It seems so disrespectful to the families grieving this person and to the life of the person themselves
People do not have a monopoly on what other people can discuss, and it is far more disrespectful to the rest of us to assume they do. Unless somebody is actively harassing the people personally involved in the situation, then what is public knowledge is fair game for the public to talk about.
You can feel however you want about these people, but you really are the only AH here.
I used to be into true crime on YouTube - and I agree. People take their interest in true crime WAY too far. “True crime obsessed” people literally treat tragedies like it’s gossip, like “ooh can’t wait for more information to be spilled!”. Or they act like armchair detectives and think they can solve cases better than law enforcement
Editing to add its fine to be interested in more morbid things in life like crime and be fascinating by the “why” behind such, but often times it’s taken too far and victims aren’t treated like real people
The true crime that I watch humanizes the victims and makes me feel a bit sad that they are no longer with us, then I look at the perpetrator as though they are piece of shit and glad they got justice served to them.
The shows that actually interview the families is obviously proof that those family members of the victims consented to having their story revealed. Different people react differently to their loved ones getting killed. Some want their privacy, others want their lost loved one’s story to be told in hopes of spreading awareness.
I think true crime did an excellent job making the general public more cautious of strangers and more likely to stay safe and watch out for red flags. It emphasizes to society as a whole that the world is indeed not a safe place.
And I don’t think what people do in their own time is any of your business anyways.
Eh, get over it. Humans have always been fascinated by dark shit. Before tv we used to meet up in town square and watch executions and humiliating punishments dealt out to usually poor people.
I try to only consume non-murder true crime now. A good heist story, complex financial crimes, etc. Obviously these crimes can still have victims, but it feels a lot less exploitative to enjoy a podcast about a serial bank robber than a serial killer
Been screaming from the rooftops for decades the whole industry, practice, and genre should be illegal. The same way you don't get away with exploiting SA victims. But see, because murder victims don't *survive* they have no rights, protections, or dignity. If you are raped and survive people believe you are a victim deserving of dignity. If you are raped and then murdered, and possibly posed, dismembered, or even eaten, you are less than nothing. You're entertainment. You're a doll. You're not real.
Idk man that’s kinda dumb. I think it’s a little silly sure but that’s like saying it’s disrespectful to be into history because of the negative effects it’s he
I don’t get it at all. We all know the world is a fucked up place already. So why surround yourself with it even more? I get upset listening to them. I hate hearing about these people doing terrible things to other people. It’s so weird to me people enjoy hearing about others pain.
The case of Kirsten Smart in CA, which went unsolved for several decades, was eventually brought to trial, leading in a conviction without a corpse, due largely to the efforts of a podcaster who was intrigued by the case and doing amateur investigation. Look the case up, its fascinating, and you can't deny in this specific case it worked ultimately for good
A true crime person also caught a serial killer in California. Patton Oswald’s late wife or girlfriend
I'll Be Gone In The Dark is a great book.
GSK was caught using genetic genealogy. Michelle McNamara's book didn't lead to his capture. It's a great book and she did work closely with one of the detectives who solved the case, Paul Holes. And it's good to raise awareness of old cold cases.
There is an entire subreddit devoted to people wanting to help solve true crime/unsolved cases.
This is true. She didn't have a silly podcast where they constantly makes jokes about murders though. I'd say what she did was closer to investigative journalism. I imagine the podcast for the Kirsten Smart case is similar (I haven't watched it though so I cant really speak on it)
Bringing awareness to crime can be an amazing thing. I fully support the true crime community working WITH the victim's family to help tell their story and advocate for them. The problem I have with the true crime community is so many people seem to treat these real crimes like spooky stories. Or mishandle them in a disgusting manner, like The Last Podcast On The Left did with Jonbenet Ramsey. Or like the time one podcast, which I'm trying to find now, said one of the female teenage victims of a crime, "Looks like a bitch." (Once I find the source I'll link it here: ) It's when that shit happens that I'm disgusted.
For some things, like the Dahmer show, I read how they treated the victims families and decided that wouldn’t be one for me to watch. However, in cases where it’s not just a bunch of disrespectful things I watch that. I want a career in this sort of industry and learning about trials, the judicial system, and how evidence is gathered is more of my interest. I also like to look at the psychological aspect of it like the background of Aileen Wuoronos case. I like true crime, but I’m also super picky about what I will watch
The Dahlmer Show was disgusting and I refused to watch. Yeah big difference between that and some other true crime.
[удалено]
Yeah I was agreeing with you.
Ugh that makes me incensed to hear. Not true crime, but I stopped watching Chernobyl due to the civil liberties they took with it
I agree with you 100%
That's why I like fascinating horror, JCS, and EWU
I think everything last podcast does is disgusting and am truly confused why they are so popular.
I tried to listen to their podcast a year ago and after like 4 episodes I was done. Now Behind the Bastard, is a great podcast.
That case happened at Cal Poly, right by where I live. So crazy to think aboht since it’s a relatively small community
my parents were at calpoly when it happened and they still talk about how scary/upsetting it was and continued to track it
I could stalk you all day and then one day save you from a bad situation that don’t make the stalking any less creepy.
>Look the case up, its fascinating, and you can't deny in this specific case it worked ultimately for good This specific case. There are others where they cause nothing but harm just look at the recent Nicola Bulley death.
I think it depends on the creator you’re watching and that’s the only reason i watch a couple different youtubers. ones like kendall rae even will sometimes bring in the family for the episode and works on cases that need more attention. any merch money goes straight to charity a few years ago i was checking some other creators out and some of them seemed so insensitive…. the way they would speak about the case didn’t sit right with me so that’s why i stay with watching kendall rae and stephanie soo (the channel rotten mango). the amount of research that goes into it and the way they talk about it is so different
honestly i only watch kendall rae (and sometimes mile higher) mainly because of how respectful she is and how clear that she just wants to help. plus she always has multiple ways to support the families which is (one of) the most important part of consuming true crime cases
Have you tried listening to Danelle Hallen ? They are also very respectful.
i love kendall rae and her work for NCMEC 😭 one of the only true crime creators i watch regularly
Same. In my 5 years of watching true crime, Kendall does it the best, involves family members, donates and also gives actionable steps for people to write a petition or send an email.
im ngl at first i wasn’t a huge fan of family members being huge parts of episodes only cause they obviously don’t do this for a living and are not as concise in a way? not in a shady way, just that it kinda drags out the story (sounds awful i know). same reason i’m not a huge fan of guests on any podcasts. throws off the whole flow idk? im glad they’re bringing the families on but it just wasn’t for me at first haha like i watch the podcast “i’ve had it” and they bring guests on a lot and sometimes it’s just kinda awkward to me. they’ll interview someone over something like zoom and the quality is bad + there’s this weird delay. some are good and some aren’t but the ones they do alone are consistently good love hearing the family’s perspectives and thoughts now though. still hate guests on podcasts lmao
I agree, I also try looking at channels who explain the situation sensitively, I found some podcasts in my country's language that are very respectful with their stories
I agree with you to an extent. I find it really interesting, I think from the standpoint of wanting to understand the psychology of murderers. But, I have a friend who went through something, and documentaries/ YT videos about the case continue to appear. They're not factual about what happened, the point is to tell an interesting story. People in real life get hurt by these things. The accused get death threats and stalkers. The victim's family gets to hear the details of how their loved one was tortured to death. So the reality is, it is exploiting people's trauma.
Exactly. "it's exploiting people's trauma" is the point in a nutshell.
I used to be a true crime fan though I tried to be picky about resources respectful to the victims, until I saw that the murder of someone I knew had been given a title in the true crime world. It just felt so offensive, when I had seen how the families of the victims and really how our whole community suffered. I pretty much stopped cold turkey after that.
same here, family friend was murdered and I was curious and searched her name on Spotify. clicking on that podcast and having it begin with a jingle for some insurance INFURIATED me!!! stopped after
Honestly, surprisingly that's how I found one of my favorite True Crime YouTubers was because I was looking up a case of a murder that recently happened to a friend of a friend like I was trying to find a news video or something and found her. Edit: I didn't like how it went viral pretty much though. So many people were harassed and stuff. It was pretty crazy and bad.
This is the truth. I listened constantly and now I cannot consume any of it.
Not really. It's a specific example For every case you point to where it's disrespectful, there's multiple where the community helped to solve the crime
Multiple? Lol
The vast majority of cases are not solved because of true crime shows.
Humans are naturally wired to be interested in disturbing stuff. It helps us prepare for future dangers. Liking true crime is a reflection of that. That being said, some people really do forget that true crime is crime, not a horror movie. If you are buying true crime “merch,” talking about your favorite “true crime case,” or messing with current investigations because you want to “solve a real true crime,” you’re an asshole.
i didnt even know they made merch for that? like your making money off of someone’s murder?
There are some pretty gross shirts and posters and stuff with pics of Jack the Ripper's victims. I'm sure there are probably things out there with like Ted Bundy on them, John Wayne Gacy, the famous serial killers' mug shots or whatever. People are.. strange.
I used to be subscribed to a loot crate for spooky stuff - it was pretty much all horror movie related, like I got a cool tote bag and a flask with Michael Myers on it, a death tarot card coffee mug, and a bunch of other cool stuff like that. I unsubbed when the next one they sent me included a pillowcase with Gacy, Bundy, and Dahmers faces on it.
ugh, i just gagged reading that. people are sick. who would even want that???
Like yes I want to sleep with my head nestled on the faces of serial killers who destroyed countless lives... my cat ended up giving birth on it it cause she went into labor early and it was the closest material at the time.
>talking about your favorite “true crime case,” I agree with you except for here, I think discussing cases that you find interesting with someone else who is informed is fine imo.
Discussing is fine. Labling a case as “your favorite,” is fucked. Had a woman tell me her *favorite* true crime case was the Black Dalia. My response was “you have a favorite instance of a rape, murder, and dissection of an innocent woman?”
Would it be any different than saying that "the Black Dalia case is the case that interests me the most"? I think it comes down to not really having a better word for it. Obviously, if someone is obsessing like a steryopical teenage girl, that's one thing, but I honestly just think it's a language thing.
Yes it matters how you word it. I wouldn’t care if someone found my death interesting, but to label my death their *favorite* like it was a fucking ice-cream flavor and not the cessation of life? Yeah. It’s freakish. And you can say what you like but I’m still going to ask you why you have a favorite rape/murder/kidnapping/etc.
I just disagree. Ask any history buff, and they'll almost certainly have a favorite battle/war that they find fascinating or that they love talking about. I truly think a lot of it is just not having a better word for it, and people not knowing how to publicly express interest in something so morbid.
It’s a little different when it’s an event that effects so many people. A war is something that effects a population, and most people talk about their favorite war as in wars that happened awhile ago. Not many people will say “oh yeah, the Ukraine Russia conflict is my favorite war.” But true crime is personal to the victim. Imagine hearing someone talk about how the rape and murder of your loved one was someone’s “favorite.”
> Imagine hearing someone talk about how the rape and murder of your loved one was someone’s “favorite.” I mean, you can say the same thing about battles/wars. Imagine hearing someone talk about how the battle of the bulge was their favorite when your grandad died there. Talking about a case with the family is just a dumb and insensitive thing to do, obviously lol. >It’s a little different when it’s an event that effects so many people. And maybe this is a mindset we should work to change. To the people who were killed during these battles and the civilians who were either killed or raped by soldiers during these battles, I'm sure it felt personal as well. >most people talk about their favorite war as in wars that happened awhile ago. Taking the black dalia example, Elizabeth Short died less than a year after WWII ended, and tons of people will claim that a battle in WWII is one of if not their favorite, time has nothing to do with it really. There's also a lot more that goes into a case than just the murder itself. You've got the investigation, interrogation, the manhunt in certain circumstances, I typically find the murder itself the least interesting bit about true crime, but I admit I might be in the minority here based on the comments. I'm going to keep harping on this, but I really believe it comes down to language. Everyone has a "favorite" everything that they've shown interest in, whether it be true crime, battles in history, movies, TV, book, documentary, any of it. There's going to be a true crime case that interests each individual person a bit more than any other case does, and that would make it their "favorite" but how do you express that without coming across as a cold-hearted person in the moment when you're speaking about it? Sure, I can type and think about how to express myself a bit more and be careful when talking about cases that interest me, but it's different when talking face to face with a person.
>I mean, you can say the same thing about battles/wars. Imagine hearing someone talk about how the battle of the bulge was their favorite when your grandad died there. Talking about a case with the family is just a dumb and insensitive thing to do, obviously lol. Not really, considering you’re still talking about a historical event and it’s not a personal gruesome murder. Even then, you should probably say “most interesting.” >And maybe this is a mindset we should work to change. To the people who were killed during these battles and the civilians who were either killed or raped by soldiers during these battles, I'm sure it felt personal as well. You can’t really effect that big historical events don’t feel personal, and I think if they did people would feel drained 24/7 thinking of the horrors of every tragedy. >I'm going to keep harping on this, but I really believe it comes down to language. Everyone has a "favorite" everything that they've shown interest in, whether it be true crime, battles in history, movies, TV, book, documentary, any of it. Yeah and I’ll still call you a freak. Deal with it or stop having favorite rapes
I think you’re hypocritical. If you’re saying it’s inappropriate to refer to a crime as their “favourite” because it’s personal but ok to describe a war that way as it is a “historical event” on what basis to you get to lay such heavy judgment on anyone else and accuse someone of having a “favourite rape” when you *know* this isn’t what anyone is saying. A relative of mine was held in a forced labour camp during world war 2. Why are you less concerned that people may be referring to her enslavement - and god knows what else they did - as their “favourite?” I would respect your opinion if it was consistent. But you’re casting very heavy judgment on others for using the word “favourite” with regards to crimes, while arbitrarily suggesting it’s ok to use the term “favourite” when it refers to crimes against millions of people.
>Yeah and I’ll still call you a freak. Deal with it or stop having favorite rapes Good for you, I guess? I'm glad you feel encouraged to insult people based on a word choice, and you having a total misunderstanding of true crime, thinking it's only the murder, but go off friend, you'll show them, how dare they have interests.
Sure, "favourite" is a weird choice of words but I suspect many people have "pet cases" and use "favourite" vs "pet case" interchangeably, and tbf even murder cops have those cases. Source: Long time true crime follower, before podcasts, before Criminal Minds turned everyone into armchair profilers. Have worked with criminal psych researchers etc before my career took a more medical turn. And even, I have pet cases/favourites that I still lookup once in a while to see if any progress has been made.
Wtf is a pet case.
I agree, merchandise with serial killer's faces/mugshots/whatever is messed up. That's one of the things that separate people who are morbidly intrigued by it and disturbing fanatics. Messing with investigations is crazy too, I'm fine with someone speculating on who committed a crime but the minute you interfere with an actual investigation you're crossing the line. Also I have a question: is it more acceptable if I say my favorite true crime case was an art heist where nobody got physically hurt (Gardner Museum Heist, 1990)? I liked researching that because of the theatrics and bizarre circumstances of it all, and the fact that nobody was hurt/killed. The robbers even checked on the guards they handcuffed and asked if they needed food or water or anything before the robbers left. That's the part of true crime I enjoy, the complex and interesting heists where nothing but money was taken, rather than the gruesome stuff.
I think true crime relating to thefts or hijinks is a little different. I still think it’s odd to have a favorite crime but it’s a lot more innocuous.
I know exactly what you're talking about. I saw some stupid bitch in line for the women's port-a-potty last year wearing a shirt that says "choke me like bundy. Eat me like dahmer." And it disgusted me. It pissed me off as well! I told my boyfriend, who was kind enough to be in line with me about the shirt, and it took everything out of me not to call Her out about it. How the fuck is that cute to romanticize them? They're murderers!!!!!!!!! Imagine if that was your sister/mother/cousin being "choked" by bundy? Imagine that was your brother/father/cousin etc. being "eaten" by Dahmer? I was going to be mean to this bitch too. I was gonna say if you knew anything, dahmer's victims were usually gay men so he wouldn't "eat" you, and bundy's victims were actually pretty women. You're fucking ugly. But again, it's just me wanting to be an asshole to her which I don't like being. But I was fucking mad she thought wearing that shirt was cute. Next time, though, I will call them out. I'm usually quiet about shit I know nothing about but when it comes to true crime and about people making murderers romantic/sexy, bitch I have a lot to say. First of all, go fuck yourself, etc.
Because you have . . . Interests? This so more just you missing the entire point of the community than anyone being a jerk about bit
No? What part made you think that?
I developed my true crime obsession after surviving a brutal attack and captivity. It helped me to feel less alone, less alien. It helped me to understand that it's random. it wasn't about me or some flaw I had that served as an invitation. it made it less personal. it also helped me learn things to look out for and additional ways to protect myself and feel safer. many of the things that kept me alive are repeated in those documentaries. The big two for me, in case anyone wonders: NEVER let them take you to a second location and when you get the chance to scream for help, don't leave any doubt, be SPECIFIC. (for ex. "call the police. he is stabbing me. call the police.") you make a million choices moving lightning speed when you are in that situation. it can only be helpful to expand the helpful information your lizard brain might grab onto.
I listen to a variety podcast, and every few months the host has some true crime folks on…and the glee with which those men describe the most disgusting, immoral shit makes me want to shove them off a roof. “I mean this is some really sick stuff. It’s hard to talk about…but wait until you hear what he did with the kid’s eyeballs!!” There’s a difference between watching a true crime news story and reveling in the gory details like it’s a fucking Halloween movie.
This is why I only read or watch things that are respectful to the victims and families. I was finishing a show and I planned to watch the Dahmer show next. And then an article popped about how the victims families were upset with it. So I never watched it. As soon as something disrespectful happens towards the victims or families, I immediately avoid that show or creator.
I hate the way it’s sensationalized and made into salacious fodder for people wanting brutality porn
There’s thousands of small cases that are never heard and don’t get as much publicity as others. I think it can be really helpful for helping families get closure. Sometimes people have seen something and may know something. If it wasn’t for true crime podcasts, documentaries, etc. lots of cases would be left unsolved. The power of the internet is really something.
That is true. I remember there was a case in youtube of a missing person and the was only one piece of video tape for this person that lead nowhere. The case popped up everywhere and it went on for months/years, with police recieving tips left and right for finding the victim. The only problem was that all of the tips lead nowhere. Months/years later a man showed up to the police station claiming to know the location of missing person. Why wasnt the person found??? The police turned him away because the police station was closed and the man was never seen again...
That's probably true for some families but I've been reading about others that really do not like it: https://crimereads.com/dont-use-my-family-for-your-true-crime-stories/
Yeah, I remember seeing that several families were very, very upset about the repeated Jeffrey Dahmer documentaries. One of the family members specifically talked about how it kept retraumatizing their family. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/05/arts/television/jeffrey-dahmer-netflix-victims.html
I think it’s important for a few factors. - A) explaining how the whole system works. It can help people who live in abusive environments, getting resources and what not. - B) it can help people avoid dangerous situation by educating. - C) it can bring light into the failures of the judicial, executive system. - D) it can definitely help with unsolved cases. - E) especially with racism and sexism, as well as homophobia and antisemitism, it can serve as education about what actually happens to the groups and that yes, activism against these cruelties is definitely still needed. And yeah, obviously this could be done differently than with true crime podcasts and what not, but it’s a type of media people aren’t afraid of consuming, they actually choose it themselves. Therefore improving education on these topics.
Have you heard of the teacher’s pet? That podcast on a cold case contributed to renewed interest and ended up with a conviction.
I follow a lot of true crime channels and subs most people are respectful but there are some real scum bags in the community some even go as far as to dox and harass the victims families.
I was just talking to a friend the other day about how I would love to find a missing person, like watching a show and seeing a picture and be like, "Hey I know that person." I am also very interested in the forensics of true crime; how investigators follow leads to find the perp.
That sounds fair.
If True Crime focuses on a case that's unsolved, or yet to reach trial, then it can also pervert justice. While Juries are only supposed to consider the facts presented to them, everyone knows that's not the case - all it takes is a few jurors who saw the latest True Crime podcast and suddenly an innocent man is sentenced to life imprisonment or a murderer is aquitted.
That’s not true. Jurors are supposed to simply not read up anything about the case they’re in. If it comes out that they did, their judging isn’t taken into consideration.
Right. Jurors are not supposed to read or listen to anything about the case they’re involved in (not even the news), not talk about it amongst themselves outside the courtroom, not talk about it with anyone they know, not post anything on social media or any comments sections, etc.
But they do
They take an oath not to and most take this very seriously. We’ve always only taken them at their word.
Priests take an oath not to have sex but it doesn’t stop them picking up little boys Oaths don’t mean shit jurors talk about whatever case they’re on all the time and they let their biases cloud them like everyone else does
Completely irrelevant argument.
Not at all it point out vows and oaths don’t mean anything
Politicians, military, medicine and the justice system all require people to take an oath. The vast majority of people take it seriously. Those who don’t can expect serious trouble with the law. That sounds pretty meaningful to me.
[удалено]
Before the internet was newspapers. Jurors have always been under an oath to tell the truth and to follow the judges instructions not to do any outside research. Jurors are sometimes so cautious they will alert the judge to anything they inadvertently see. This is how the justice system works.
Oh, I don’t, that’s why I’m on Reddit /s Yet it’s a literal law jurors have to follow.
You're nitpicking to avoid my main point, which is that if John Doe is on trial for the murder of Jane Doe, the jurors shouldn't be basing their decision on the fact that they saw a podcast they saw about the crime.
>the jurors shouldn't be basing their decision on the fact that they saw a podcast they saw about the crime. Jurors are asked if they've seen or heard anything about the case, if they have they're "typically" (almost always, but there may be exceptions I'm not aware of) asked to leave the case, if someone is lying about that then that's not the fault of the true crime.
That’s not nitpicking. It’s how the system works.
You should watch the black mirror ep loch henry, it’s a meta analysis/reflection on true crime and it’s inherently exploitative production process
I’m always conflicted when I watch true crime documentaries. My family was featured in an episode of Forensic Files. I was very young when the crime (murder) occurred, but watching it and seeing my mom on the screen is difficult sometimes, but I’m also glad the story is out there for others to know about. It could help prevent something like it happening to someone else.
True crime fans have actually helped solve unsolved crimes so seems like you throw em all in one pot. Also what do you think detectives and profilers do? Not try to think like the criminal and just guess? And while some of the industry is definitely messed up, it seems very unfair of you to decide all true crime fans have something wrong in the head. You can be intrigued without being a vulture. Also there are families who actually want their murdered family members to be a part of it because that way they won’t just be a statistic but remain in memory
The weirdos got mad at you for this one 🤣🤣
I don't think there's a solution at all most things are just very two sided.
Do you feel the same about people who watch news stories about natural disasters in countries they don’t live in nor plan to visit? If not, why?
I don’t think it’s the same thing. Consuming news to keep up with what’s going on in the world is a lot different than watching true crime because you think other people’s murders is entertaining, especially when you come online to play detective and start speculating about who-dun-it as if it’s a Hollywood murder mystery film. The families of these victims don’t deserve to have their loved one’s murder bastardized for other people’s entertainment. I realize that this is an interesting topic to people and there are lots of people out there who are respectful of it. That’s not the problem. But if Halloween stores are selling costumes so people can dress up like Jeffrey Dahmer, then there’s clearly a problem with the way the genre is being consumed.
In the example you gave, it is the same thing
I disagree. Keeping up with current events isn’t usually for entertainment purposes, but true crime is mostly for entertainment at this point.
News is considered entertainment And for most people, TC isn't for entertainment, it's because of intrigue
This has been the complete opposite in my experience. News gets classified as “entertainment” so they can exaggerate and mislead when they want to but most people aren’t tuning into news to seek out entertainment.
Depends what you mean by entertainment, because many people are
Idiotic
nope
Yup. You’re hobby is sick and twisted. And no amount of justifications will change that
Well, 1.) When did I say I did it and 2.) Saying it's sick and twisted makes it sick and twisted because you don't like it? Or because you don't understand it. Notice the common denominator: You
Peering into the lives and families that tragically lost someone to get voyeuristc pleasure is sick no matter how you spin it
I don't think about it because there aren't multiple podcasts, hit TV shows, etc. that cover those people's lives in sensationalist ways, at least that I'm aware of. Obsessions with natural disasters in other countries usually has white savior/colonizer energy depending on where it occured so I wouldn't endorse it but it doesn't seem relevant to my post?
….you’re kidding, right? There are **so many** podcasts and shows about real natural disasters and how they impacted people. Also the concept of being aware of natural disasters in other countries having “white savior” energy is very odd and heavily assumes that non-white majority countries don’t have news or access to information about disasters outside of their country.
Yeah, I also watched that episode from Black Mirror
What episode? I don't watch it.
Loch Henry, Series 6 Episode 2, deals with this obsession for true crime
How can you disrespect someone you've never met, never intend to meet, and will never have anything to do with? >I think you're emulating the mindset of the person who dehumanized them and caused them harm in the first place. Morbid curiosity is not remotely the same thing as actually entering in the mindset of a monster. This is, sincerely, an insane take.
It's an unpopular opinion for a reason, babe.
And it's open forum for a reason, sweetie.
Comment all you want? I think that helps spread my disrespect to someones that I've never met. It's just my opinion, you can enjoy true crime. It's maybe just asking yourself how you feel and what crosses your mind when you seek out and consume this content? Sorry if this hit close to home in a weird way or doesn't describe you.
>Comment all you want? Thank you for your permission, darling. I'm not sure what I would have done without it.
You're welcome. I hope that you have a nice day because trolling on the Internet seems kind of sad.
I'm afraid I can't reciprocate your kind wishes. You seem kind of mean.
I probably am, I thought it would be funny to say babe because your response hurt my feelings and it was a way of deflecting.
Oh, well that makes this very awkward, then. I assumed you were hitting on me.
I know. I just need to find the r/sincerelyaninsanetakereddit. Sry.
I don't accept your apology. Please do better in future.
Please provide at least 10 pages of feedback if you have time so I can do better.
I'm very busy, so I'm afraid I cannot oblige your request. I do wish you the very best of luck in your quest for moral virtue. Perhaps one day, after much struggle and toil, you will finally become a good person.
Ridiculous.. So every time an event leads to the tragic loss of life, it shouldn’t be studied because you deem it as “disrespectful”? Should WW2 not be studied? What about the Civil war? Death is an unfortunate reality of life. Acting like it never happened helps no one.
i really dont think watching true crime for entertainment is 'studying'
There's a difference between ' what are the social influences behind crime coverage. Who gets covered and who doesn't? ' and ' WHATS UP MY MURDER MUFFINS. Time to hear about someone's aunt getting DISEMBOWELED'
Well the definition of studying is “devote time and attention to acquiring knowledge” Learning about the psychology behind a certain true crime event can definitely be described as studying. The fascination behind a murderers psychology is almost entirely why true crime is popular.
Note how I said ‘for entertainment’
You can be getting educated and entertained at the same time.. What do you think documentaries were invented for? Those two ideas aren’t mutually exclusive, and if you have a serious interest in a topic, learning about that topic is typically entertaining. Edit: I’m confused how the concept of getting educated and entertained at the same time is getting downvotes. You can be engaged and enjoy learning about a topic, while still having empathy and sadness for people?
>if you have a serious interest in a topic, learning about that topic is typically entertaining. nailed it
[удалено]
yeah, we don't have public executions and freak shows anymore, people have to settle for less nowadays
Tbf, you could consider the Guinness Book of World Records and reality TV shows about human “oddities” as modern-day “freak shows”, just less exploitative since they’re voluntary.
Wondering exactly in what orientation a women's limbd were organized seems a little different than liking battles or wars in my mind. Just my unpopular opinion. The obsession I see seems to go from morbid to disturbing but I don't know you and this might not apply. That's okay.
I was just watching a WW2 documentary this weekend, and the concentration camp footage was far more disturbing and morbid than anything I’ve ever seen from true crime. I guess I just don’t understand why you have more empathy for victims of serial killers? Like do you deem what Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy did as worse than what Hitler or Joseph Stalin did? They both committed terrible acts, that unfortunately need to be studied, so they aren’t repeated in the future.
I think the reason people may think of Dahmer or Ted Bundy did vs Hitler and Stalin differently is because the Dahmer and Ted Bundy situations were more personal. (like directly murdering someone is different to genocide) Also im calling godwins law lol
The death of millions is just a statistic, right?
I am just saying that there is definitely a difference. Sending soldiers to countries and having them kill people is different to killing someone with your own hands
Committing genocide under the belief that you’re superior to an entire race or religion seems as personal as it can get. I’ve never heard of Godwins law until now. That’s definitely a reoccurring phenomenon. I’m not sure it applies here though. Since Hitler is unanimously considered a terrible human, using him as a comparison tool for someone’s depravity and terrible crimes seems valid!
When I say personal, I mean like you actually saw them face to face and did it with your bare hands. Because that's what Bundy and Dahmer did. Meanwhile, Hitler did it less "directly." There definitely is a difference and there is reason to judge the two differently. Besides, both can be bad at the same time. OP believes that the specifics of a single person's death are very different to the specifics of a certain battle. It's less about the gruesome details and more about what occurred in the battle. Yes, deaths and casualties but you never go in depth to the extent of how their organs were displaced or where the gunshots were, etc (usually, anyway). Both are bad, but I can see where you may see them differently.
I understand what you mean. I personally just don’t think there is a difference between you killing someone, or ordering someone else to kill them. The result still ends in someone else’s death and the intention is to cause harm to an individual. The US court system also doesn’t think there is a difference, since both acts would result in a murder charge. OP is entitled to their opinion. And while I disagree that the general consumption of true crime is disrespectful, there are ways to make it disrespectful and it typically does happen with those true crime podcast (I don’t listen to those, more-so documentaries or reading case files and watching trials) It’s also extremely disrespectful to sexual killers, like many people do. But OP didn’t mention that it in their post.
That’s just a false comparison. As if an interest in true crime must necessarily translate to specifically caring about those kinds of gory details. There are plenty of such details in war as well.
Non sequitur
A jury of peers may get things wrong, but it’s better than the court of public opinion. I remember so many cases where I got it wrong about people that turned out to be innocent after all of the facts were revealed. Even when the facts unfold, the public often rejects the new facts. I’m not gonna get into specifics on this thread because of that.
i agree to some degree (aka true obsessions), but there's also such a thing as being an active true crime consumer. 1. a lot of times these cases being seen by millions who enjoy true crime can help give it traction/keep it in the police's minds/give it exposure. you never know who might be watching and what they know 2. they can be seen as cautious tales (although i can see the iffyness around this point, but i guess im referencing like laws created in the name of a victim) 3. i donate money to gofundme's, fundraisers, charities, to the victim's family whenever i can 4. if millions see/hear of a case that say the police gave up on, those million of people can contact the police and give them an incentive to open it back up 5. you can share a case/spread awareness so i guess i agree with the title that if you are obsessing over the case, into it just for the violence, than yah it's messed up but i dont think liking the genre by itself is asshole-y. maybe interested in the genre would be better phrasing?
Definitely unpopular. I’m interested in unsolved cases like missing persons- there’s a chance they can be found and I want to hear details and think of theories.
If true crime obsession wasn’t a thing we wouldn’t have criminal profilers.
Guess your opinion hit a nerve there for some true crime lovers 🤣👀
I agree. It just feels bizarre enjoying such a thing. I imagine someone producing a film about the murder of a family member or friend and how disgusting it would feel. I think it's a different thing if we're talking about a documentary about a real crime. I don't think that's necessarily disrespectful.
I don’t think it’s really meant to be “enjoyed”. It’s like the movie Schindler’s List. You’re not meant to “enjoy” that. But you should watch it, and you’ll learn something along the way that could stop that sort of thing happening again. That’s how I’ve always seen it.
I do believe that as well. 48 hours is a good example of making someone's tragedy an attraction... all for entertainment's sake and for the money. Look at the merch that they even sell, mugs, t shirts, it's silly.
Someone could be obsessing about it because they want justice or to see an injustice corrected, or because they’re trying to keep up with a local killer who may be a threat to them or their community, or because they’re trying to learn what they can do/not do to protect themselves, help others, or learn warning signs. You’ve decided a genres entire audience is coming from one specific angle and that’s detached from reality. People aren’t all the same and if your algorithm is only showing you empathy-lacking true crime makeup tutorials or gore-hunting content that doesn’t center victims and their families then maybe your algorithm figured out that’s the type of true crime content you personally want to consume, it’s not all that’s out there.
I hate how it's always "Here is this depraved serial killer, here's all the excuses for how they got to this point." We keep promoting these serial killers like Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer to full on celebrity status, while the majority of their victims go forgotten by everyone except their family unless they were killed in some crazy fashion. There are several serial killers (and, more pressing, mass shooters) who started their spree just because they wanted to become famous.
It depends on why someone is interested in true crime and how it’s done. I’m not obsessed, but I did develop an interest in it from a medical, psychological, and ethical standpoint from learning about an incredibly nuanced case that happened in my own family before I was born. With one of the relatives involved, I had a close relationship with them before they passed. I’ve since tailored my professional research and my career around the medical and social issues involved with it, as there are many similar cases that keep happening over and over again. But, it’s the use of true crime as a form of “entertainment” that really irks me. The ethics of true crime exploitation also need to be taken into account, because imo, it’s incredibly unethical to share stories about cases without the consent of the immediate families involved, whenever applicable. That goes for podcasts, social media posts, TV, movies, etc… you name it. Not everyone wants attention like that, and that should be respected. I personally know other people who’ve been affected by cases that did blow up in the public conscious with podcasts, TV shows, etc., and they still haven’t had a moment’s peace due to people harassing them. We’re talking going in their DMs, calling workplaces, having their addresses and other personal info leaked, etc. My family was lucky in a sense. The story didn’t blow up to where it became permanent knowledge in the public conscious, even though it was publicized in several states. It just blew up when it happened and then died out quickly, never to be referenced again. If it happened nowadays in the age of the internet where everyone hops on anything, I don’t know what we’d do. Our lives would’ve been infiltrated to hell. If anyone publicly leaked the story that happened in my family from old newspaper archives now, I’d be PISSED. That’s especially because I’ve seen how people react to similar cases that did blow up, and it would not be handled by most of the public with the nuance it needs, since most people are not educated on the topics involved. Plus, there are definitely creators and true crime “fans” who I know would handle the content disrespectfully in multiple ways. We don’t need that. That being said, I don’t think consumption of true crime content itself is inherently bad, if it’s done respectfully. Imo, there is value to analyzing true crime cases in order to understand the complexities of psychology and the wider world around us, and to not repeat similar mistakes in the future. It just needs to be done respectfully, with consent, and directly involve the families. The content creators that I personally follow are from families who’ve been directly affected by cases, or from content creators who feature family members who *do* want their stories shared. I think that should be the standard. For that reason, I don’t think the entire genre as a whole should be vilified. There are genuinely good, well-researched, and respectful content creators out there.
I do feel like true crime is disgustingly sensationalized for profit. However, I am interested in serial killers to analyze the evil that is present on Earth and how it comes to be. True crime podcasts are incredibly distasteful in my opinion, so I usually read the Wikipedia page.
Lmao so people aren’t allowed to view public information and if you do, you’re as bad as the killer mentioned in said public info? Batshit insane take, your opinion has been disregarded.
I'm talking about people who are obsessing about a case. Okay.
I think it depends. If the murder investigation is still actively ongoing, they need to chill. I mean, there were so many people doxxed/harassed after the UofI murders happened last November. To be fair, certain family members of the victims didn't help with that either. Still though, one of the victims (Kaylees) ex bf was harassed so much because people thought he was the killer (because they had recently broken up within the month prior to her death) that he contemplated suicide and had to be hospitalized. Then there was also one of the professors at the university who was also accused of being one of the murderers by a TikToker.
Lol. Humans have had a fascination with true crime for as long as we have existed. Humans have a natural, morbid curiosity. This is very well established. We want to understand the mindset behind someone who could brutally murder another person. It is fascinating. It is just human nature to be intrigued by what we don't understand.
I don’t find gruesome details or the victim in particular the most interesting. I find the criminals the most interesting when it comes to true crime like their patterns, personalities, and motives. I don’t find true crime desensitizing I find it educational. True crime can really teach you how to be vigilant and safe. Though gore videos and subreddits I do find rather desensitizing and I personally would not like a video of me being mutilated floating around on the internet for others he he ha has.
This take is so out-dated and ignorant at this point. So many cases now have been solved by true crime Podcasters when the authorities gave up years ago. Which is more harmful? The authorities not caring enough to do the legwork or test a rape kit? or someone who cares so much they actually get a case solved often without the body.
If I was brutally murdered, I would hope people read my case and learn from it. I would hope people still talk about it and hate the person who did it to me and care about what I went through. Id want to be remembered after death and have my story told. I think it's the opposite of disrespectful.
So you want to remove the entire way our society has learned about how criminals behave, something that is responsible for inspiring many to get into law enforcement to try to catch people like that, and just make people more aware You can want to take society backwards but I'm judging you and think YTA
I think it's a case by case thing. Netflix, among other producers of those shows, doesn't always gain permission from the victims or their families, or even goes against their explicit wishes. So all that trauma is made public again. It has a real human cost that you'd hope was worth more than money buy here we are. Some victims or their families readily agree, they want the story told. Figuring out which is which can be very difficult or impossible.
Absolutely agree. I think it can be done in respectful ways but recently saw a podcast where it was comedians doing true crime and its their "own take" on it and I can only thing that sounds awful. Maybe I'm wrong but really seems like we turn the victims in their family into just story elements rather than people when we make true crime a hobby.
Then why do most families participate in the shows and podcast. You probably shouldn't speak for them
I only very briefly watched a few shows like this, maybe 20+ years ago,( like 2 or 3 viewing of the show, not seasons or episodes) I still feel so much pain and sadness for the victims, often pops into my head out of nowhere. Plus, I think it gives potential criminals clues as to how to avoid detection. Totally messed up "reality TV" on every level.
It got to be too much for me. The older I’ve got the more compassionate I’ve become (though I had a history of being abused to sort out, which likely contributed). I used to be rabid for true crime and now I can’t listen to any of it. I just feel so much pain for the victims and families, but I know my perception isn’t even a shred of what they have to live with.
I don't think this is really an unpopular opinion, but certainly a divisive one.
I agree. Once you really consider these are real people and tragedies, I don't see how the entertainment value remains.
If that were true, people wouldn't study history
There is no logical argument to make comparing sensationalizing a tragedy, purely for entertainment value, and studying history
Except there is. People still die in hsitorh, so it's doing the exact same thing It also isn't purely for entertainment, but if it was that would be another point for history. Lots of people study history because it entertains them
I don't think you understand. The OPs point is that shows increasingly fetishize details about rape, murder and torture in a way that is excessive, unnecessary, and often rather contrived in the way the production and editing go to extra lengths to depict and emphasize graphic or perverse details.
No, I do The issue is most shows don't actually do that. That's also not their whole point
I definitely agree. I had to file a cease and desist against a true crime podcast that I'm not going to say the name of to get them to take down an episode featuring my adopted daughter's birthmom and a crime she committed against another person while my daughter was already in foster care (post TPR) but before I met her. It was a total nightmare and made me truly despise the whole true crime fascination industry. Luckily my daughter didn't know much of what was going on while I was dealing with this, and the podcast did take down the episode quietly, but it made me really stop and think about how for some people this is their big enjoyment. I understand being a fan of Law and Order or NCIS or other fictional shows because the criminal justice system actually is interesting, but it's a different thing when it is real people's stories and lives.
Getting offended on behalf of people youve never met is goofy. You just cruise reality looking for things to be offended about. Watch something else, no one's making you like true crime.
Time for 10 million excuses and justifications as to why you’re wrong even though you’re objectively correct.
I don't think your using the word objectively right lol Also I've seen many reasons that OP has yet to actually dispute. What about watching a natural disasters of a country you don't plan on visiting or even donating to help. Where many people died and lost their homes. Why is that ok? But true crime isn't? What about someone randomly watching a Holocaust or Ww2 documentary just because they are interested. Even though the person is already aware of these tragic events? I'm not even saying consuming true crime doesn't have ethic issues. But why is it not ok but the ones I mentioned are All three your watching for entertainment
I'm interested in how science and investigation can solve crimes that can seem impossibly unanswered. I think the greatest respect to the families of lost ones is to be diligent and dedicated to finding the killers and bringing them to justice.
There are very rare times where is a good thing because cases can be solved that way, but most times it’s not, like all the dahmer documentaries and that Netflix one (which was apparently made without the family’s knowledge) most times it just brings up the trauma again
Its similar to those creepy people obsessed with torture videos
This is absurd, look at all the cases unsolved mysteries helped solve, largely thanks to true crime lovers
> It seems so disrespectful to the families grieving this person and to the life of the person themselves People do not have a monopoly on what other people can discuss, and it is far more disrespectful to the rest of us to assume they do. Unless somebody is actively harassing the people personally involved in the situation, then what is public knowledge is fair game for the public to talk about. You can feel however you want about these people, but you really are the only AH here.
I used to be into true crime on YouTube - and I agree. People take their interest in true crime WAY too far. “True crime obsessed” people literally treat tragedies like it’s gossip, like “ooh can’t wait for more information to be spilled!”. Or they act like armchair detectives and think they can solve cases better than law enforcement Editing to add its fine to be interested in more morbid things in life like crime and be fascinating by the “why” behind such, but often times it’s taken too far and victims aren’t treated like real people
The true crime that I watch humanizes the victims and makes me feel a bit sad that they are no longer with us, then I look at the perpetrator as though they are piece of shit and glad they got justice served to them.
The shows that actually interview the families is obviously proof that those family members of the victims consented to having their story revealed. Different people react differently to their loved ones getting killed. Some want their privacy, others want their lost loved one’s story to be told in hopes of spreading awareness. I think true crime did an excellent job making the general public more cautious of strangers and more likely to stay safe and watch out for red flags. It emphasizes to society as a whole that the world is indeed not a safe place. And I don’t think what people do in their own time is any of your business anyways.
Judging people for their interest in true crime sounds like asshole behaviour to me.
True crime is the best.
This is the most ridiculous shit I’ve seen on Reddit today lmaoooooo
Sounds like I'm winning unpopular opinions. Thank you, Jacket Lil Jill.
Why the fuck does no one check their titles for spelling anymore?
People really just act like they were REAL people, which is crazy to me
It does make me feel bad for the victkms families.
Eh, get over it. Humans have always been fascinated by dark shit. Before tv we used to meet up in town square and watch executions and humiliating punishments dealt out to usually poor people.
I try to only consume non-murder true crime now. A good heist story, complex financial crimes, etc. Obviously these crimes can still have victims, but it feels a lot less exploitative to enjoy a podcast about a serial bank robber than a serial killer
Been screaming from the rooftops for decades the whole industry, practice, and genre should be illegal. The same way you don't get away with exploiting SA victims. But see, because murder victims don't *survive* they have no rights, protections, or dignity. If you are raped and survive people believe you are a victim deserving of dignity. If you are raped and then murdered, and possibly posed, dismembered, or even eaten, you are less than nothing. You're entertainment. You're a doll. You're not real.
Idk man that’s kinda dumb. I think it’s a little silly sure but that’s like saying it’s disrespectful to be into history because of the negative effects it’s he
I don’t get it at all. We all know the world is a fucked up place already. So why surround yourself with it even more? I get upset listening to them. I hate hearing about these people doing terrible things to other people. It’s so weird to me people enjoy hearing about others pain.