When True Crime Blurs the Fine Line

The American public is notorious when it comes to craving entertainment, and it seems that fiction is no longer enough.

Pop culture has been in rapture with a podcast called “Serial” produced by Sarah Koenig. In its first season, the podcast follows the story of a young man, Adnan Syed, who was convicted of the murder of Hae Min Lee in 1999. The two had dated but had broken up and were in high school when Hae was murdered. Adnan has been in prison since his conviction.

The public’s obsession with this story — and the public discourse on the “did he” or “didn’t he” question — has been substantial, particularly given that podcasts aren’t the most popular medium for storytelling.

The buzz surrounding Syed’s story, and the question of the fairness of his trial, now leads to what is happening today — Syed is in court again to hear the testimony of an alibi witness. The three-day hearing will decide whether Syed will receive another trial.

Another larger-than-life murder trial has also become the subject of discussion with the release of the Netflix original series. “Making a Murderer” follows the story of Steven Avery, who was wrongfully imprisoned for 18 years for a crime he didn’t commit. After his release, Teresa Halbach was killed and her remains found on Avery’s property. Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey were convicted of her murder.

[lz_related_box id=”102406″]

This story turned into a media circus during the 2005 trial, and the debate has been reignited on a much larger scale today. Almost 360,000 people signed a petition that was submitted to the White House to have Avery pardoned by President Obama after watching the Netflix series.

The key problem surrounding both of these stories is that the American public is having difficulty differentiating between reality and entertainment.

After watching a Netflix series or listening to a podcast, the public believes they know and understand something that the people involved in the proceedings, who worked on the trials and were on the juries do not.

Particularly with the Avery case, the implication concerning high level and complicated corruption in the Wisconsin government is accepted by people after watching a documentary — albeit a convincing one. And in “Serial” the case is made that the defense team was the reason Syed was convicted, not perhaps that he was actually guilty.

With the creation of these real-life dramas playing out on our TVs and computers, all of the American public is invited to discuss and ultimately judge.

The other particularly interesting element to these productions is the lack of equal representation from both sides. Halbach’s family endured something so horrific and excruciating, yet “Making a Murderer” is told almost exclusively from the defense’s side. Both the Neflix series and podcast are meant to be entertainment and tell a story, a riveting and intense story.

Lastly, the issue concerning the fairness of the justice department in the United States. The critics are right — everyone who stands a trial in the United States should be thought innocent until proven guilty. But aren’t those who are jumping on the bandwagon for the presumption of innocence of a convicted man guilty of the same sin?

When it’s all said and done, the issue of innocence or guilt should be decided in a court room, not in the public sphere — and certainly not through a series meant for entertainment.