Knowing wrongful conviction by participating in streaming true crime

• In Event: Digital Criminology: Criminal Justice and Knowledge Production

Abstract

Digital technologies have been a catalyst in the true crime renaissance, with platforms like Netflix, Spotify, and YouTube making true crime a popular form of entertainment and a potential avenue for justice. For the wrongfully convicted, streaming true crime offers new ways to share their narratives, experiences, and increase public advocacy for their cases. This paper explores the experiences of key figures involved in presenting wrongful convictions via streaming true crime media, including podcasts, Netflix documentaries, and other platforms. Through interviews with exonerees, lawyers, innocence project directors, journalists, and producers, the paper provides insights into the impact of the streaming environment on the wrongfully convicted, their stories and advocacy surrounding their cases. The immediacy of the streaming environment is significant draw for exonerees and advocates, as it helps generate public awareness and sympathy, potentially contributing to exoneration or having a healing effect. Authenticity in production is also viewed as a crucial element for the acceptance of exonerees' stories, with producers who centre the narrative and experiences of the exoneree being key. Many participants view their involvement in true crime as an avenue to subvert the criminal justice system's restrictions on sharing knowledge and the commercial imperatives driving the true crime phenomenon. Participants also expressed concerns about the commercialization of podcasts, fearing that poor decisions may impact the presentation of truth and public responses to wrongful convictions. The decision to participate in true crime should be personal, with participants understanding their reasons and purposes. The paper highlights the need for ethical and authentic true crime content creation, noting that while the industry is evolving towards a more ethical approach, there is a risk of content that discredits exonerated individuals and contests the knowledge their advocacy seeks to distribute.

Author

• Greg Stratton, RMIT University