Netflix True Crime Revival Raises New Ethical Questions

By Amara Osei

Netflix premieres the documentary “Suzane von Richthofen: O que o Tempo Não Apaga” (“What Time Does Not Erase”) on Wednesday the 11th, more than two decades after Manfred and Marísia von Richthofen were murdered in 2002.

The production uses new interviews, archival images and testimony to revisit one of Brazil’s most notable criminal episodes. Ahead of the release, the 2002 case has returned to social media and reopened debate about exposing people convicted of high-profile crimes.

What makes real crimes so compelling?

True crime (stories centered on actual criminal cases) has moved beyond Richthofen. O Globo reports that documentaries about serial killers, investigative podcasts and series inspired by real crimes have gained an audience in entertainment and digital conversations.

Psychiatrist Jessica Martani links the interest to psychological mechanisms for perceiving danger and understanding human nature. The genre can mobilize fear, curiosity and a desire to understand extreme behavior, but interest alone does not signal admiration for an offender or identification with criminal conduct.

One explanation is morbid curiosity (an interest in threatening, violent or disturbing situations), a term used in psychology. It captures the attraction without establishing sympathy for those responsible.

Scientific Reports published a study that used samples of up to 571 participants and identified several motives for consuming crime stories:

• Curiosity about dangerous people
• A search for intense emotion
• Interest in recognizing risky situations

The study also found greater consumption among women in the sample, partly associated with attempts to understand threats and develop self-protection strategies.

Catarine Birk, CEO of Fri.to and a social media and digital marketing specialist, said: “She was an upper-middle-class girl, a law student, with a family that seemed ordinary.” She added: “That contrast makes people uneasy, curious and eager to understand.”

The time gap also matters, Birk said. People who followed the 2002 crime revisit a shared memory, while younger generations encounter it for the first time.

In plain terms, the appeal comes from contrast, danger and a desire to understand behavior, not automatic admiration for the offender.

Can fear and curiosity become compulsive?

Watching a criminal documentary lets viewers approach threatening situations without living through them. Martani said details of an investigation, identification of those responsible and the circumstances of a crime can create a sense of understanding amid real-world unpredictability.

The format can sustain attention. A narrative introduces an event, assembles clues and usually reaches resolution, holding viewers across several episodes even when they report discomfort or fear.

Reactions to individual stories still vary. Martani said people with a history of trauma or anxiety, or greater vulnerability to violent content, may respond more intensely, especially when a case resembles personal experience.

Liking police documentaries or following investigations does not, by itself, indicate a mental disorder or dependency, according to Martani. Concern rises when the habit becomes difficult to stop and affects sleep, routine or a person’s sense of security.

A Boston University study of 280 adults found associations among intense social-media engagement with crime stories, compulsive following and negative feelings about cases. It did not establish that true crime necessarily causes emotional suffering. It did support closer attention to how viewers engage with the content.

Martani’s warning signs include difficulty stopping exposure, recurring thoughts about crimes, persistent fear of leaving home and sleep changes. She places more weight on effects on well-being and daily activities than on the number of programs watched.

The warning sign is not a high viewing count; it is a habit that starts changing daily life.

How do social platforms amplify a case?

Comments, shares and reaction videos extend a case’s life on social platforms. Birk said this creates algorithmic amplification (a cycle in which engagement prompts recommendations for similar material). She said: “It does not create curiosity, which is very human and very old, but it accelerates and amplifies.” The system “transforms a case into the subject of the day, almost a series, with new chapters at every post,” she said.

That cycle can make platforms the main distributor of renewed attention, but it does not explain the original appetite for the story. Viewers become active participants when they comment on theories, question testimony and share interpretations.

Birk put the change this way: “Commenting is a way to participate in the story; each person becomes a little investigator, judge and scriptwriter at once, and the network gives them a stage for that.”

The same dynamics can support defenses of, or identification with, people convicted of violent crimes. Character development, interviews and competing versions of events can move attention from what happened to the personality behind it. Disagreements and private theories then generate further interaction.