True-crime dramas have become one of the most compelling and controversial genres in contemporary entertainment. From Netflix’s Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story to HBO’s The Staircase and Apple TV’s Black Bird, dramatizations of real-life criminal cases continue to captivate audiences worldwide.
These adaptations promise more than just entertainment—they promise insight, reflection, and even justice. But as more streaming platforms greenlight dramatizations of infamous cases, a larger question emerges: How are real events being reimagined in today’s true-crime dramas, and at what cost?
From Fact to Fiction: The Rise of Scripted True Crime
Historically, true crime found its audience in documentaries, books, and longform journalism. But with the rise of prestige television and streaming platforms, a new form has taken hold: scripted true-crime dramas that blur the line between fact and narrative.
These series often boast high production values, renowned actors, and an episodic structure that turns real events into multi-hour sagas. Viewers binge-watch not just for the thrill, but for the emotional weight, moral complexity, and psychological exploration that these shows promise.
Unlike traditional crime procedurals, true-crime dramas are rooted in events that actually happened. This gives them a unique power—but also a unique responsibility.
The Narrative Craft: Building Characters from Headlines
One of the defining characteristics of today’s true-crime dramas is how they reconstruct real people as fictional characters. Writers and showrunners must turn police reports, court transcripts, and news articles into compelling screenplays that capture attention and drive narrative arcs.
But real people are rarely as neat or fully developed as fictional characters. To create emotional depth and narrative cohesion, writers often fill in blanks with dramatic interpretation. This might involve imagining conversations that were never recorded, internal thoughts that were never shared, or events that happened off the record.
In The People v. O.J. Simpson, for example, the creators gave the prosecution and defense teams rich interior lives and conflicting motivations that humanized the case beyond the media frenzy. Similarly, When They See Us took documented events about the Central Park Five and wove them into a story that was both factually grounded and emotionally devastating.
The Ethics of Creative License
With storytelling power comes ethical responsibility. Dramatizing real crimes involves real victims, real families, and real consequences. Creative liberties—however minor—can have real-world effects, especially when they alter public perception or create new myths around existing cases.
Take Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, for instance. While the series received critical praise for its performances and production, it also drew backlash from victims’ families who were not consulted and who found the reimagining deeply traumatic. For them, the series wasn’t just content—it was a painful reminder, repackaged for mass consumption.
Producers often defend dramatizations by claiming public record and artistic freedom, but that doesn’t negate the ethical dilemma. True-crime dramas tread a fine line between raising awareness and sensationalizing tragedy. When empathy takes a back seat to spectacle, the line is easily crossed.
Filling the Gaps: Imagination vs. Manipulation
Real cases often come with missing information, whether it’s unclear motives, contradictory witness accounts, or unresolved legal conclusions. This ambiguity can be frustrating for audiences but is often irresistible to screenwriters.
To maintain engagement, creators sometimes invent or emphasize certain events to “fill in” what’s unknown. This can be a useful narrative tool—especially in ambiguous cases like The Staircase—but it can also skew the viewer’s understanding of what actually happened.
For example, if a dramatization leans heavily into one theory of a crime while downplaying others, it might influence public opinion unfairly. Even if a series includes disclaimers, the visual impact of dramatized scenes can leave a stronger impression than footnotes or legal clarifications.
Performance and Perception
Casting choices also shape how we perceive real individuals. When an actor brings charisma, vulnerability, or menace to a role, it colors our impression of the person they portray—sometimes permanently.
Evan Peters’ performance as Jeffrey Dahmer, for example, brought a chilling depth to the serial killer’s character. While intended to portray horror and discomfort, some viewers found themselves sympathizing with or glamorizing Dahmer—a reflection not of the script, but of how performance can affect interpretation.
The same goes for Dirty John, where the portrayal of John Meehan (played by Eric Bana) walks a careful line between charming and manipulative. Such performances are powerful, but they highlight the emotional influence actors can have on true-crime narratives—turning perpetrators into characters, and viewers into silent jurors.
Audience Psychology: Why We Watch
One reason true-crime dramas have become so successful is that they offer more than just storytelling—they offer psychological insight. Viewers are drawn to the “why” behind the crimes, the motivations that lead people to harm, and the systemic failures that allow injustice to flourish.
In this sense, reimagined true crime often serves as cultural commentary. Shows like Unbelievable and Unorthodox explore not just crimes, but how institutions react to victims—highlighting failures in law enforcement, healthcare, or religion. These series extend beyond individual acts and hold a mirror to society at large.
Still, there’s a thin line between awareness and voyeurism. When crimes are reduced to cliffhangers or aestheticized for entertainment, the message can become muddled, and the original purpose lost.
Balancing Truth and Story
So how should creators approach dramatizing real events? The most thoughtful productions tend to follow a few unspoken principles:
- Transparency: Clear disclaimers and thoughtful interviews help audiences distinguish fact from interpretation.
- Consultation: Involving the families of victims or real-life figures adds authenticity and respect.
- Intentionality: Every fictionalized scene should serve the emotional truth of the story, not just the spectacle.
True-crime dramas work best when they center humanity over hype. The genre’s power lies in its ability to foster empathy, challenge assumptions, and inspire reflection. That’s not possible without care, nuance, and a commitment to honoring the truth—even when it’s uncomfortable or incomplete.
Final Thoughts: Reimagining With Responsibility
True-crime dramas are evolving. They are no longer just about solving puzzles or reliving sensational crimes—they’re about context, psychology, and consequence. As audiences become more discerning, the bar for thoughtful storytelling rises.
Creators must remember that these aren’t just stories—they’re lived experiences, shaped by grief, loss, and resilience. When handled responsibly, true-crime dramatizations can educate, provoke, and even heal. But when reduced to entertainment alone, they risk commodifying pain.
In the end, it’s not just about what is reimagined—it’s about how and why. And in that space, today’s true-crime dramas have the opportunity to redefine not just what we watch, but how we understand the world behind the headlines.