However, the recently released documentary on Netflix regarding the Menendez brothers has garnered negative feedback from viewers, especially regarding the ethics of portraying real-life individuals.

Vice President of the Criminal Psychology Club at Michigan State University and criminal justice and psychology junior Giselle Figueroa said directors, when filming these kinds of shows, should have an obligation to understand that the victims that are being portrayed are real people, and are talking about real lives.

Additionally, Figueroa said although these shows are usually dramatized for entertainment purposes, there should be a clear focus on the victims.

"People like when things are exaggerated way above what they originally were," Figueroa said. "But when it's real people and real lives, and especially victims or victims' families that are still alive and went through these things, I definitely think that they need to focus on the victim stories more so and make sure that if they are dramatizing it, they're not making the victims seem like the bad people."

Similarly, President of the Criminal Psychology club and criminal justice and psychology senior Iliana Wilson said there are ethical obligations due to the nuanced nature of criminal cases, and because of the multiple sides to the story.

Additionally, Wilson said the ethical obligations should consist of research on the facts surrounding the case, as well as the victims.

"I do think there are ethical obligations to do their research on what truly happened," Wilson said. "I think it's very important to do research on their lives, how they were affected, how their families were affected, because I think it's all very, very complicated. Because a lot of the times in these cases, the victims aren't around anymore, and that makes it really hard, because it can become this very one sided narrative of the people who did it versus the people who had the crime done to them."

However, assistant professor in the School of Criminal Justice Dr. Vivian Aranda-Hughes said that it’s not necessarily the job of the filmmakers to focus on ethics.

"I think one of the things that we have to remember is that these are drama series, these directors, and these movie makers, they're entertainers," Aranda-Hughes said. "That's what their job is. They're not documentarians. They're making these movies and these drama series because they recognize that a lot of people are really interested in true crime."

Additionally, Aranda-Hughes said if there was no dramatization and the shows were just solely displaying the facts, it wouldn’t bring in viewers.  

"If they just stuck to exactly what it was, I think it'd be boring, I don't think that it would pull in people," Aranda-Hughes said. "So I think as far as when it comes to the drama series or the movies, I would, on an ethical basis, hope that they would try to stay at least in line with what the facts are and what the situation is around it."

Some responsibility to adhere to general ethics falls on the creators who decide to create content about these cases, Figueroa said.

"I feel like in a lot of these cases, especially in like true crime podcasts and articles, people tend to say (and) add in extra information that wasn't there, or put in their opinions about the victims if they didn't like a certain thing that they did," Figueroa said. "So I feel like to just to stay truthful to what actually happened and to make sure that you are taking into account the victim's feelings, and not just their feelings, but basically the whole situation, like taking into account what happened to them and the trauma that they went through, I feel like that's something that they should be focusing on."

On the other hand, Wilson said there is some responsibility that lands on the viewers to adhere to general ethics.

"I'm not saying that that's like, 'Oh, every time you watch true crime, you have to know everything about it independently,' but I think also, like a lot of us, are grown adults, and you're not at that point just like this mindless consumer of information, you have opinions, you have background information on things," Wilson said. "So I think the viewer has to know, especially in these media portrayals that aren't documentaries, that this isn't like (the) holy truth. This is a portrayal, and this is going to be dramatized, and this is going to be fictional to an extent. There's so many different sides to it that you have to, like, know what's real and what's not."

Aranda-Hughes said showing all sides of the cases are also an ethical consideration.

"They're trying to gather as many facts from as many places as they can, talking to different people, getting public records through the courts, you know, there's lots of different perspectives," Aranda-Hughes said. "Otherwise, I don't know that it would be really fair to say there's only one point of view, there's only one perspective. And so, for instance, using the Menendez brothers, only using their perspective, it wouldn't tell the whole story. It would only give one portion of it."

When it comes to ethical obligations regarding films, documentaries and recreations of true crime cases, is there a commitment for these films to be true only to the story that was presented by the defendants? Figueroa said it’s contingent on the context of the show.

"I feel like it depends on what the show is saying it is," Figueroa said. "Say it’s a docu-series, if you're doing a mini-series that's supposed to be mainly the story, the true thing, I feel like they should be true to what the defendants were saying. But I feel like if you're going for the more dramatized effect, then you can do it, because I feel like everybody has perspectives about what they think happened when they're going over trials or reading case notes."

Inevitably, when it comes to cases that have exploded in popularity, whether it’s through films or social media, the portrayals can affect the individuals involved in the cases. Wilson said the families of the victims are who she believes are severely impacted by these portrayals.

"The victims aren't there anymore to vouch for themselves, so you can go to the ones who were the most impacted other than them, which are their families and their friends, and they're going to be impacted by these portrayals," Wilson said. "I know there was a ton of negative feedback from the families themselves after that (Jeffrey Dahmer) show, just because it's like you're glorifying this man, and you can show him as a soulless predator, but the show is about him."

Aranda-Hughes said the portrayals and media attention could actually benefit the individuals involved, as well as the general public.

"I remember when this was all happening," Aranda-Hughes said. "I was 14, 13 years old, as a kid I was watching (it all) happen on the news and back then I just didn't know anything about anything, but child sexual abuse wasn't talked about, especially with boys. That didn't even become popular or more talked about, or people started recognizing it as a problem, until what happened around that same time (with) the Menendez (brothers), with OJ Simpson and Nicole Simpson, that is what really got people's attention. And a lot of researchers started, you know, really started studying it. I mean, that really spurred a whole movement."

Additionally, Aranda-Hughes said the portrayals and the media can additionally benefit the people involved by giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

"With the media attention in that case, I think it benefited those defendants," Aranda-Hughes said. "If they were not sensationalized, if they were not out in the media, a lot of people weren't talking about them. There's a lot of people inside of prison who have been sexually abused or abused, and they're sitting in there and they don't have the media helping them out."

Aranda-Hughes said some benefits of media attention include revisiting cases with new facts, which can help those individuals involved in the case. 

"So I think one of the benefits is when we are relooking at these types of cases, when you have a couple of individuals in there that, you know, maybe probably should be out, and we missed it. As (a) society, I think we fail a lot of people who are incarcerated," Aranda-Hughes said. "So I think the pro would be (that) we are more aware of these issues, we become more aware of what the criminal justice system is in this country, that it's not what it should be. It needs a lot of work."

When it comes to issues and cases that consist of a clear divide between viewers, the media can frame the issues in specific ways to affect people’s views on these cases. Figueroa said in order to sway viewer’s opinions, it comes down to the directors of the films and their points of view emulated through them.

"I feel like depending on who the director is and how they see the case itself, they could decide how they want these characters played and write the script a certain way so that how they view them, the world could view them (that way)," Figueroa said. "I definitely feel like media has the biggest influence in how people see cases and how people see the people being portrayed, because a lot of people aren't going to do the research themselves, and a lot of people don't take Netflix series with a grain of salt."

Additionally, with cases that have viewers divided on who’s in the wrong, the question of justice also can split up viewers, depending on their opinions. Figueroa said no matter what, individuals will always be divided on whether or not justice was served, and the true meaning of justice.

"People are going to be divided on who's right and who's wrong in these cases," Figueroa said. "Honestly, even in cases where there is a clearly right person, some people are going to be the Devil's advocate and be on the other side. I feel like no matter what, people are going to have their own definitions of justice, like you see that every day in politics and media, everybody has something different to say about what justice truly means."