Patricia Ramírez has opened the box of true crime pain, of series and documentaries about real crimes. The mother of Gabriel, the Pescaíto, begs that no one profit from the death of her son, murdered (he was only 8 years old) by Ana Julia Quezada, partner of the boy’s father. Patricia implores help from the administrations and citizen support to put a stop to an industry (documentaries and series) profitable as never before. The steps that Gabriel’s mother has taken – demonstrations, denunciations, press conference… – raise a first obligatory question: where are the limits in the elaboration of these stories based on real events with the elements of fiction or investigative documentaries?
Vicente Garrido, Professor of Criminology at the University of Valencia, and author of the book True crime: la fascinación del mal (Ariel), marks four ethical limits for the format. “First of all, it must be respectful of the known facts, and if it raises substantial unproven issues, it must be very clearly distinguished what is a hypothesis from the proven reality; something necessary in true crime fiction, and not only in documentaries”.
In the second place, Vicente Garrido suggests always promoting in these contents “the debate on important issues of the protagonists and the societies in which they live”. This criminologist considers that “the knowledge we have of what surrounds crime and the justice system would be much poorer if there were not a genre that, in its documentary or fictional variety, exposes with time and means its reality and the its effects on institutions and affected people”.
The third red line that should never be crossed is from the manual: “You must never glorify or praise the killer and there must always be a sensitive respect for the victims and their close people.” And the fourth and last requirement, in order not to cause unnecessary pain in the involuntary protagonists of the stories, “is that the murderers do not charge money to speak and, if this happens, that it is requisitioned by the judge to pay the pecuniary penalty of compensation which always accompanies murder. In this way, the family would collect some money that they did not aspire to have”, adds Garrido.
Ferran Lalueza, professor of Communication at the Open University of Catalonia (UOC) and researcher of the GAME group (Learning, Media and Entertainment Research Group) marks, for his part, two ethical lines that should never be crossed in these productions. “From the outset, out of respect for the victims, everything that could revive and even accentuate the pain that those who have been the object of a criminal act and their close people have already had should be avoided”. affirms
If this content is produced or broadcast “without the consent of the victims or their loved ones, revictimization is taking place”, warns Lalueza. Gabriel’s mother complains that a production company has already contacted her son’s murderer, Ana Julia Quezada, in prison, to participate in the production. Without the mother’s permission, since Patricia has refused from day one to collaborate with this true crime industry and has also not granted interviews to traditional media. Quezada would have now been isolated in prison where she is serving a sentence for cutting off collaboration with the documentary.
And if the story affects minors (as is the case with Gabriel), “this revictimization is even more serious and undesirable”, emphasizes the UOC professor.
Vicente Garrido, for his part, perfectly understands the crusade started by Patricia Ramírez: “It’s logical that he doesn’t want to revive the drama and even less that the murderer makes money from it”.
The red line of money is the one that should never be crossed, agrees Lalueza. If it is paid, “criminal actions are being rewarded; when the criminal ends up being the first beneficiary of the production, ethical values ??are shaken by a flagrant injustice”, says the communication expert.
But not all crime victims see things the way Gabriel’s mother does. The crusade started by this woman had a quick response from Antonio del Castillo, father of Marta, the young woman murdered in 2009 in Seville and whose body has never been found. Antonio reminds Patricia that in her case a journalistic work provided information that the Police had overlooked. So, for Antonio del Castillo, these productions are welcome.
In this case it is a documentary and not a series. Difference in format that Lalueza does not overlook. “Restricting the work of journalists in serious and thorough investigations of criminal actions would not be a good idea”, he opines. The works “certainly” can “bring light to the darkness”, indicates the UOC professor, making his own the phrase of Carles Porta at the start of his successful Crimes, which in some of its chapters have solved mysteries where the police investigation
The documentary is justified, according to the opinion of this communication expert, “when it addresses issues that have social relevance and about which, as a society, we have the right to receive truthful and rigorous information”. And the case of Marta del Castillo, he adds, “is a good example of how this kind of work can be carried out with the consent of victims and relatives instead of going against their wishes”.
It is therefore very clear that, “if you commit to rigor and quality, it will always be easier to get the support of the victims’ environment than if you commit merely to the morbid and the spectacularization of the information”. concludes Ferran Lalueza.
