True Crime or True Influence: Exploring How TV and Movies Impact Criminal Behavior

In today’s media-saturated world, the line between entertainment and real-life influence is becoming increasingly blurred. We are constantly exposed to stories of violence, crime, and drama—whether through movies, TV shows, podcasts, or social media. With technology woven into the fabric of our daily lives, we consume more media than ever, often without fully considering its real-world implications. Social networking platforms have seen explosive growth over the past decade, with the total number of users skyrocketing from 970 million in 2010 to over 5.17 billion by July 2024.[1] This constant stream of content can desensitize us, making it easier to consume sensationalized narratives without reflecting on their potential impact on our perceptions and behavior. But what happens when the fictional world of crime bleeds into reality? Can a TV show or movie really inspire someone to commit a violent crime? Several legal cases argue exactly that.

This blog explores the intersection between media, criminal behavior, and the law. It examines cases in which individuals claimed that TV shows, movies, or online content influenced them to commit heinous acts. These cases often raise thorny questions about the media’s role in shaping behavior, the limits of First Amendment protections, and whether such claims hold water in court.

Case 1: Andrew Conley and Dexter

In 2014, Andrew Conley,  a teenager from Indiana, was sentenced to life in prison after murdering his younger brother.[2] Conley, who was seventeen years old at the time, strangled his 10-year-old brother for approximately 20 minutes while they were “playfully” wrestling.[3] Concerned about bloodstains on the floor, Conley placed a plastic bag over Conner’s head and wrapped electrical tape around his face.[4] Conner was still alive.[5]

He then placed a garbage bag around Conner’s body, dragged it to the garage, and then bashed his brother’s head against the cement floor to ensure he was dead.[6] Conley then placed Conner’s body into the trunk of his car, changed his clothes, and drove to his girlfriend’s house.[7] With the body still in the trunk, he stayed for two hours and watched a movie.[8] Afterward, Conley took Conner’s body to a wooded area and hid it under a brush.[9] Later that day, Conley voluntarily walked into the Rising Sun Police Department to confess his crime.[10]

Conley’s former girlfriend, Alex Murafski, testified that his issues with his parents were so severe that she feared he might “snap.”[11] She also mentioned that Conley was a fan of crime shows like Dexter and CSI and that he expressed a desire to be “just like [Dexter].” [12] “Dexter” follows the life of Dexter Morgan, a forensic blood splatter analyst for the Miami Metro Police, who secretly leads a double life as a vigilante serial killer.[13] Throughout the show, Dexter kills several victims through strangulation with a wire garotte, and in one episode, he places a plastic bag over a victim’s head before bludgeoning him to death with a fire extinguisher.[14]

Conley claimed he felt an irresistible urge to kill and that despite wanting to stop, he “just couldn’t do anything to stop.” [15] Dr. Dean Hawley, the pathologist who examined Conner’s body, testified that Conner had a “remarkably swollen” brain, indicating he had been alive for hours after he was strangled. [16]

The defense’s argument that social media influenced him was not successful, and Conley was sentenced to life without parole. However, the case was sent back for a new sentencing hearing because Conley had ineffective legal representation during the trial. This case raises important legal questions about the psychological impact of media on viewers, especially younger individuals.

Case 2: The ‘Natural Born Killers’ Controversy

One of the most infamous cases involving media influence is that of Natural Born Killers, a 1994 film directed by Oliver Stone. The movie follows a couple on a killing spree, which was widely criticized for its excessive violence and perceived glorification of crime. In 1995, Sarah Edmondson and Benjamin Darrus went on a similar crime spree after watching the film, killing a store clerk and shooting Beyers, which left her a paraplegic. [17]

The victims’ families filed lawsuits against Oliver Stone and the film’s producers, claiming that the movie incited the violent acts.[18] Edmonson, through an affidavit, claimed that she and Benjamin Darrus were influenced by the movie Natural Born Killers. She stated that they repeatedly watched the film and used LSD in the two weeks leading up to their crimes.[19] According to Edmondson, the movie desensitized them to violence and fueled their desire to feel its power, playing a major role in their decision to commit the robberies and shootings.[20] Edmondson admits that without watching the movie and using LSD, they likely would not have taken a gun or left Oklahoma.[21] She describes the movie’s influence as part of a “dangerous chemistry” that contributed to their actions, alongside other poor choices. [22]

The court dismissed the case, ruling that the filmmakers cannot be held responsible for the murders because of protections under the First Amendment and free speech.[23] The ruling emphasized that filmmakers could not be held responsible for the actions of their viewers unless the media explicitly incited criminal activity.[24]

To support a claim that speech should be restricted or penalized as incitement to unlawful action, the court must determine that the speech (1) was aimed at provoking immediate illegal conduct and (2) was likely to result in such conduct. [25] Speech that encourages action at some unspecified point in the future does not meet this standard.[26] In addition, the United States Supreme Court has held speech does not forfeit its First Amendment protection simply because it has the potential to incite violence.[27]

The Natural Born Killers case underscores the tension between free speech and public safety. While the film was controversial for portraying violence, the court maintained that artistic expression is protected unless it directly encourages lawless actions.[28] This is because most “copycat” cases lack evidence that the speaker intended to encourage criminal behavior.[29] While such speech may indirectly glamorize crime, it does not directly promote it.[30] After reviewing Natural Born Killers, the court found Darrus and Edmondson’s crimes to be a “copycat” situation.[31] Though the couple may have imitated characters from the film, the movie does not advocate or incite such actions.[32] Therefore, as a matter of law, Natural Born Killers is not inciteful speech and remains protected under the First Amendment.[33]

Ultimately, the court’s decision reinforces the protection of artistic expression under the First Amendment, even in controversial cases where media is blamed for influencing criminal behavior. While tragic, the Natural Born Killers case serves as a reminder that responsibility for violent actions rests with the individuals who commit them, not with the creators of fictional content. The court’s opinion emphasizes that the constitutional protection of free speech and press are not based on the naïve assumption that speech is harmless. Rather, it rests on the constitutional principle that, the societal benefits of open dialogue and idea exchange outweigh the potential risks of exposing society to harmful or dangerous concepts.[34]

Case 3: The “Slender Man” Stabbing

The Slender Man case illustrates that media portrayals of violence can influence people's actions not just in films, but also in internet culture.[35] In 2014, 12-year-old Anissa Weier was charged with attempted first-degree intentional homicide.[36] Weier and her friend, Morgan Geyser, conspired to kill their friend, P.L., and after several failed attempts, they lured P.L. into the woods to play hide and seek.[37] Weier pushed P.L. to the ground, and Geyser ballistically stabbed her 19 times in her chest, abdomen, arm, and legs.[38] P.L. was found by a passerby, blood-soaked in the grass, pleading for help.[39]

Weier and Geyser claimed they did so to appease “Slender Man”, a fictional character created on an online forum dedicated to horror stories.[40] Both girls believed that they would become proxies of Slender Man and live with him in his fictional mansion if they committed the crime.[41] Their defense centered around their mental state, as both were diagnosed with mental health conditions.[42]

Weier appealed the trial court’s denial of her request for a “reverse waiver” to juvenile court, arguing that she should not be tried as an adult.[43] The “reverse waiver” appeal pertained to Wisconsin’s law that children over the age of ten accused of first-degree intentional homicide are automatically tried in adult court, unless the defense can prove that the child should instead be tried in juvenile court.[44] Weier argued that she could not receive adequate treatment in the adult system, transferring her case would not depreciate the seriousness of the offense, and that retaining her in adult court was not necessary for deterrence.[45] Although a fictional story influenced their actions, both girls were held accountable and sentenced to long-term mental health treatment.[46]

This case highlights the susceptibility of certain individuals, especially young and mentally vulnerable people, to media influence. While the court did not absolve the girls of responsibility, it did consider their psychological states and the impact of online media.

Recent Concerns: The Glorification of Serial Killers

In recent years, the release of shows like “Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story” (2022) on Netflix and the 2019 film “Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile” (starring Zac Efron as Ted Bundy) has reignited debates about the glorification of serial killers.[47] Some viewers have expressed concern that these portrayals glamorize or even fetishize these infamous figures.[48] The show “Dahmer” raises several disturbing concerns, as it profits by recreating the traumatic experiences of the murder victims in explicit detail, generating millions of dollars in the process.[49]

The Jeffrey Dahmer series was criticized not only for its graphic content, but also the reaction it received by viewers.[50] Many viewers—particularly those outside of the marginalized communities affected by Dahmer’s crimes—claimed the show wasn’t violent enough, revealing a troubling desensitization to real-life brutality.[51] The series also drew backlash from the families of Dahmer’s victims, who accused Netflix of exploiting their tragedy for profit.[52]

While these shows do not directly inspire crime, critics argue that the constant rehashing of serial killer narratives perpetuates their legacy and grants them the notoriety they sought.[53] The ongoing debate raises important legal and ethical questions: At what point does entertainment cross into exploitation, and should there be legal boundaries governing such portrayals? As long as true crime media profits from these narratives, the law must grapple with issues of media ethics, consent from victims’ families, and whether regulations are necessary to prevent further emotional harm or desensitization to violence. Legal precedents surrounding defamation, emotional distress, and victim rights may need to evolve to address the complexities of this form of entertainment.

In 2024, serial killers remain an active threat in the U.S., posing ongoing challenges to law enforcement and public safety.[54] The media’s portrayal of serial killers and society’s perception of them is intricate, shaping and reflecting our collective mindset.[55] By turning these terrifying yet fascinating figures into central villains in both news and entertainment, the media has fueled the rise of true crime content, sparking both intrigue and concern.[56] Serial killers are often depicted as embodiments of ultimate evil, driving a blend of curiosity and fear.[57] However, these portrayals can distort reality, elevating their infamy and contributing to misconceptions about the frequency of such crimes.[58] True crime narratives often blur the line between fact and fiction, altering our understanding of these criminals and the nature of their actions.[59]

It should be noted that even purely fictional shows can have serious real-world consequences. The Netflix series “You” has found record-breaking success, with its fifth season set to premiere this year.[60] Per Netflix, the show follows “a dangerously charming, intensely obsessive young man” who “goes to extreme measures to insert himself into the lives of those he is transfixed by.” [61] Douglas Klutz, an instructor in the UA Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, believes the entertainment industry capitalizes on the public’s fascination with serial killers and violent crimes.[62] “These true crime specials create a distorted perception of the types of crimes being committed and their actual frequency. In turn, the way these crimes are portrayed in popular media influences how people think they are handled within the criminal justice system.”[63] Casting attractive actors to play real-life serial killers further fuels public intrigue, reviving interest in heinous acts that have devastated families and communities.[64]

These shows and movies, with their intense focus on violent individuals and their actions, can contribute to desensitization or even inspire admiration for notorious figures, leading to concerns that they might influence viewers to commit similar crimes. Continuously producing media about serial killers perpetuates their legacy and grants them the attention they seek. This issue highlights the fine line between storytelling and the potential glorification of criminal behavior. 

Case 4: Bryan Kohberger and the Study of Criminology

Recently, PhD criminology student Bryan Kohberger was accused of murdering four University of Idaho students on November 13, 2022.[65] Criminology experts, including Professor Casey Jordan, have raised concerns about students like Kohberger who may become overly fixated on violent criminals in their academic pursuits.[66] Professor Jordan questions whether Kohberger’s study of criminology contributed to his alleged actions, drawing parallels to past serial killers, who were fascinated by criminal behavior.[67] As human behavior experts grapple with the implications of Kohberger’s case and the potential for students to harbor violent tendencies, they consider the psychological complexities of those studying criminology.[68]

This crime that shook the University of Idaho community raises complex questions about the intersection between criminology education and criminal behavior. Could academic interest in crime, coupled with media consumption, create a dangerous fascination with violence? This remains an open question, but the legal significance lies in exploring how academic and media environments might shape an individual’s actions.

The Psychological Influence of Media on Crime

The mass media in the United States plays a crucial role in shaping public perceptions of crime and justice, influencing attitudes, policies, and even the criminal justice system.[69] Perceptions of crime are not fixed; they are influenced by cultural values and norms, meaning what is considered criminal can vary over time and across communities.[70]

The media shapes these perceptions through selective reporting, sensationalism, and framing, often leading to a distorted understanding of crime rates and risks.[71] High-profile, violent crimes receive more attention, fueling fear and calls for harsher punishments.[72] Media portrayals can reinforce stereotypes about perpetrators and victims, impacting public opinion on police conduct and sentencing practices.[73]

While the media can aid crime prevention by raising awareness and encouraging community engagement, sensationalized coverage can perpetuate misconceptions.[74] Media scrutiny can also pressure the criminal justice system to respond aggressively to high-profile cases, influencing prosecution and correctional policies.[75] The relationship between mass media, crime, and justice is complex, with positive and negative implications. Understanding this relationship is essential for those studying or working in criminal justice.[76]

While most legal systems dismiss the notion that media alone can cause someone to commit a crime, there is no doubt that violent media can influence susceptible individuals. Experts argue that people with existing mental health issues, or those prone to violence, may be more affected by violent content in ways that contribute to their behavior.[77] However, courts have consistently ruled that media creators are not liable for the actions of viewers unless the content explicitly incites criminal acts.[78]

Can Media Truly Inspire Crime?

The cases discussed in this blog illustrate the complex relationship between media and criminal behavior. While some individuals claim to have been influenced by TV shows, movies, or online content, the courts have been clear: media influence, while real, does not excuse criminal actions. However, these cases raise important ethical questions about the responsibility of media creators and the potential impact of violent or sensational content on vulnerable audiences.

As media continues evolving and reaching wider audiences, the debate over its role in shaping criminal behavior will likely continue. Balancing creative expression with ethical responsibility will remain a challenge, but ultimately, individuals must be held accountable for their actions, regardless of the media they consume.

As we navigate an era of unprecedented media consumption, it is crucial for criminal justice professionals, educators, and policymakers to critically examine the effects of these portrayals. By fostering a more responsible media landscape and promoting critical media literacy among audiences, we can mitigate the potential harms while still engaging with the compelling stories that shape our understanding of crime and justice.

[1] Social Media Usage & Growth Statistics, Backlinko, https://backlinko.com/social-media-users (last updated Sept. 06, 2024).

[2] Conley v. State, No. 19A-PC-3085, at 2 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2021).  

[3] Id. at 4.

[4] Id. at 5.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id. at 14.

[12] Id.

[13]  Sulistyo Dwi Antoko, Muhammad Natsir & Nita Maya Valiantien, Character Analysis Of Dexter Morgan From Dexter Tv Show: With Special Reference To Psychopath Or Sociopath Disorders, 2 Jurnal Ilmu Budaya, 206, 206-12 (2018).

[14] Kill Room, Dexter Fandom, (last visited Sept. 24, 2024), https://dexter.fandom.com/wiki/Kill_Room.

[15] See Conley, No. 19A-PC-3085, at 2.  

[16] Direct Appeal Tr. Vol. II. P. 425, 428, 439.

[17] Breyers v. Edmondson, 826 So. 2d 551, 553 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/5/02).

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23]  Id. at 558.

[24] Id. at 556.

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 108-09 (1973).

[28] Edmonson, 826 So. 2d at 554.

[29] Rice v. Paladin Enterprise, Inc., 128 F.3d 233, 266 (4th Cir. 1997) (holding that the publisher of Hit Man, which contained detailed instructions for committing murder, could be held liable for inciting criminal activity).

[30]  Edmonson, 826 So. 2d at 554.

[31] Id.

[32] Id.

[33] Id.

[34] Herceg v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 814 F.2d 1017, 1019 (5th Cir. 1987).

[35] State v. Weier, No. 2015AP1836-CR. (Wis. Ct. App. 7/27/16).

[36] Id. at 3.

[37] Id.

[38] Id.

[39] Id.

[40] Id.

[41] Id.

[42] Id. at 4.

[43] Id.

[44] Id. at 2.

[45] Id. at 6.

[46] Id. at 11.

[47] Elizabeth Murno, The Glorification of Serial Killers, The Wellesley News (Oct. 23, 2022), https://thewellesleynews.com/2022/10/23/the-glorification-of-serial-killers/. 

[48] Id.

[49] Id.

[50] Id.

[51] Id.

[52] Id.

[53] Id.

[54] Randall Scott, US Serial Killers Active in 2024: Insights, Medium (May 5, 2024), https://medium.com/@garythatcher78/us-serial-killers-active-in-2024-insights-45808c3c1fdc.

[55] Id.

[56] Id.

[57] Id.

[58] Id.

[59] Id.

[60] Chancellor Agard, You Season 5 Will Be Joe Goldberg’s Final Chapter, Netflix (Aug. 15, 2024), https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/you-season-5-renewal-final-season.

[61] Elle Standish, If It Bleeds, It Leads: Glamorizing Crime In The Media And Its Adverse Effects, The Crimson White (Apr. 19, 2023), https://thecrimsonwhite.com/109535/opinion/opinion-if-it-bleeds-it-leads-glamorizing-crime-in-the-media-and-its-adverse-effects/.

[62] Id.

[63] Id.

[64] Id.

[65] Casey Jordan, I’m a Criminology Professor. I’ve Seen Students Like the Idaho Suspect Before, Slate (Jan. 12, 2023), https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/01/bryan-kohberger-criminology-student-idaho-murders.html.

[66] Id.

[67] Id.

[68] Id.

[69] Georgia Schumacher, Mass Media, Crime, and Criminal Justice in the US, South University (May 21, 2024), https://www.southuniversity.edu/news-and-blogs/2024/05/criminal-justice-and-media.

[70] Id.

[71] Id.

[72] Id.

[73] Id.

[74] Id.

[75] Id.

[76] Id.

[77] Maria E. Rueve, MD & Randon S. Welton, MD, Violence and Mental Illness, ncbi (May 5, 2008), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2686644/.

[78] Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).