NASHVILLE, Tenn. — In 1989, the shocking murders of Jose and Kitty Menendez at their Beverly Hills home by their sons, Lyle and Erik Menendez, captured nationwide attention. Both sons were convicted and received life sentences without the possibility of parole, and their appeals have consistently been denied. However, after over thirty years, there is a new glimmer of hope for their release. This turn of events is not driven by legal interventions but rather influenced by popular entertainment.
Recent documentaries along with a dramatized narrative have revived public interest in this historic case, prompting the Los Angeles district attorney to suggest reconsideration of their sentencing. The expansive growth of true crime media, including series like Netflix’s “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story,” is shaping real-world implications for those involved and influencing societal perceptions. While these true crime formats can often bring about positive societal change, they also have the potential to cause real harm due to their emphasis on entertainment and profit maximization.
The trend of transforming true crime into readily consumable media is nothing new in the U.S.; it dates back to the “penny press” of the 1800s and continues through to contemporary podcasts and television series. While some might view the obsession with such narratives as morbid, it reflects a deeper human inclination to interpret real-life events through storytelling.
The Menendez brothers, who were ages 21 and 18 at the time of the incident, claimed they acted in self-defense due to a fear that their parents might kill them to prevent the revelation of long-term abuse inflicted by their father. During their trial, however, much of this critical abuse evidence was excluded, leading prosecutors to suggest their motivations were solely financial. As such, the public narrative surrounding the case for years was largely one-dimensional, focusing solely on the tragic murders.
The recent influx of new dramatizations sheds light on the brothers’ upbringing, providing a nuanced context that encourages a more empathic understanding of the crime. Adam Banner, a criminal defense attorney, asserts that such portrayals give the audience tools to reevaluate the situation with compassion, allowing for a more comprehensive worldview rather than a simplistic labeling of the brothers as purely evil.
The changing landscape of true crime narratives features a shifting characterization of criminals, as seen with the emergence of sympathetic antiheroes. Unlike past portrayals that assumed guilt, modern narratives—like the podcast “Serial,” which brought attention to Adnan Syed’s conviction—actively challenge the guilt of those accused, inviting the audience to question their understanding of justice. This trend coincides with growing movements advocating for justice reform and historic societal issues surrounding race and accountability within the criminal justice system.
Maurice Chammah, a writer and author, emphasizes the cultural shift toward delving into the origins of a villain’s behavior, a narrative echoed in modern media representations ranging from superheroes to the tragic depiction of characters like the Joker. As cultural narratives evolve to humanize individuals with questionable pasts, it reshapes the juries’ outlook, leading to more favorable viewpoints toward defendants who might have previously been seen as irredeemably guilty. Nevertheless, this could foster a problematic narrative surrounding the reliability of the justice system as a whole.
With true crime’s growing popularity, it raises concerns about the economic implications surrounding media portrayals of criminal cases. As Chammah points out, the risk of decisions about sentencing becoming susceptible to entertainment-driven narratives can lead to arbitrary outcomes based on public favor rather than justice.
The active involvement of audiences in the true crime genre exacerbates these complexities. Whitney Phillips, who teaches a course on true crime ethics, suggests that untrained viewers often jump to conclusions or suggest innocent suspects due to their lack of expertise, further complicating the narrative. This concern is highlighted in comedies like “Only Murders in the Building,” which satirizes the phenomenon of amateur sleuthing.
While true crime as a concept remains ethically neutral, the environment fostered by social media prioritizes engagement and sensationalism above ethical consideration. Phillips notes that the frenzy surrounding true crime has led to influencers blending it into everyday content, veering away from serious investigation, which dilutes the integrity of due diligence in portraying complex criminal cases.
