Why Romanticizing Serial Killers Misses the Point
The Problem Isn’t Attraction...It’s the Erasure of Humanity
Introduction
True crime commentary often warns against romanticizing serial killers, pointing out the dangers of treating violent offenders as attractive or mysterious figures. But the real issue runs deeper. Whether we romanticize or vilify them, we risk erasing their humanity. By turning criminals into symbols like dark anti heroes or cartoonish villains, we distort reality and perpetuate harm.
Case Study 1: Ted Bundy and the “Charming Killer” Myth
Ted Bundy is perhaps the most infamous example of romanticisation. Media coverage and re-enactments often highlight his supposed charisma, with actors portraying him as suave and intelligent. Netflix’s dramatization Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile cast Zac Efron, sparking debate about glamorization.
Psychologist Cosette Zammit notes that;
“few subjects captivate our collective imagination quite like serial killers,”
and that fascination often stems from their perceived charisma rather than their crimes. This framing turns Bundy into a myth rather than a flawed human who committed horrific acts.
Case Study 2: Richard Ramirez and the “Dark Icon”
Richard Ramirez, the “Night Stalker,” attracted fan mail and even marriage proposals while incarcerated. His image;leather-clad, brooding and defiant was amplified by media portrayals.
Lucia Petti, writing in The Chronicle, warns that portraying killers as complex antiheroes
“can unintentionally romanticize their actions, shifting the focus from the brutality of their crimes to their personal struggles”.
Ramirez became both a gothic symbol of rebellion and a caricature of evil, stripped of nuance.
Case Study 3: Jeffrey Dahmer and the “Monster” Label
The Netflix series Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story reignited debates about vilification. Dahmer was portrayed as a grotesque predator, with little nuance beyond his crimes.
This echoes concerns raised in Dana Alombro’s essay on serial killer romanticization:
“Fictionalized or not, they’re aimed to make the audience distance themselves from reality, but these serial killers are dangerously romanticized to a point where it takes away the seriousness and weight of the situation”.
The Psychology of Fascination
Forbidden Attraction
There’s a long-standing cultural fascination with the “forbidden.” Psychologists often note that danger heightens arousal and curiosity. When killers are framed as mysterious or alluring, audiences experience a thrill in engaging with something socially taboo.
• Example: Bundy’s courtroom admirers weren’t simply ignoring his crimes; they were drawn to the paradox of charm and violence.
• Expert insight: Scholars of criminology argue that this attraction is less about the individual and more about the human tendency to romanticize danger as a way of safely flirting with risk.
Control Through Categorization
Labeling criminals as “monsters” or “evil” creates psychological distance. It reassures society that violence is alien, not human.
• Why it matters: This categorization allows people to believe “they” are different from “us,” which reduces anxiety about the possibility of violence in everyday life.
• Problem: By stripping away humanity, we avoid confronting the uncomfortable truth that violence is a human act, not a supernatural one.
• Literary parallel: In The Devil in the White City, Erik Larson shows how H.H. Holmes was mythologized as almost inhuman, which made his crimes easier to sensationalize but harder to understand.
The Myth of Exceptionalism
Romantic portrayals suggest killers are extraordinary geniuses, masterminds, or dark icons. This mythologizing makes them compelling to watch but erases the reality that most crimes stem from ordinary flaws, not brilliance.
• Example: Ramirez was often depicted as a gothic rebel, but his crimes were opportunistic, chaotic, and far from “masterminded.”
• Expert insight: Forensic psychologist Katherine Ramsland has written extensively on how media exaggerates intelligence or charisma, creating myths that distort reality.
Parasocial Relationships
Media portrayals encourage audiences to form one-sided attachments. Fan mail to Ramirez or fascination with Bundy reflects how viewers project fantasies onto criminals, treating them as characters rather than people.
• Why it happens: Parasocial relationships thrive when audiences consume dramatized narratives. Killers are given screen time, backstories, and emotional arcs, which mimic the structure of fictional characters.
• Problem: This projection erases victims and elevates perpetrators into cultural icons.
Entertainment Culture
True crime reenactments are designed for drama, not accuracy. Suspense, attractive casting, and stylized visuals feed into audience psychology, turning tragedy into spectacle.
• Example: The casting of Zac Efron as Bundy wasn’t accidental, it was a deliberate choice to heighten audience engagement.
• Expert insight: Media scholars argue that re-enactments blur the line between documentary and drama, creating “infotainment” that prioritizes ratings over truth.
Why Humanity Matters
Acknowledging the humanity of criminals does not excuse their actions. It forces us to confront the unsettling truth: violence is a human act, not a mythical one.
• For society: Recognizing humanity prevents glamorization and discourages unhealthy fascination.
• For victims: It honors their suffering by refusing to turn tragedy into entertainment.
• For justice: It allows us to study crime responsibly, understanding the flawed human choices behind it rather than mythologizing.
Conclusion
The danger of romanticizing or demonizing criminals lies in the erasure of their humanity. Serial killers are not gothic anti heroes or cartoon villains; they are flawed people who committed devastating crimes. To understand them responsibly, we must resist the cultural impulse to mythologize and instead confront the raw, unsettling truth: they are human, and that is precisely what makes their actions so disturbing.
About the Creator
tj.tsele
I'm a curious mind with a passion for unearthing fascinating stories that lurk beneath the surface of everyday life. I'm a true crime enthusiast, history buff and find solace in writing poetry.
UK Migrant Families Face Giving Up Vital In-Work Benefits to Avoid Being ‘Punished’
Migrant families across the United Kingdom are being forced into a painful dilemma: continue receiving essential in-work benefits or abandon them to avoid what they describe as being “punished” by the immigration system. Campaigners warn that current policies are driving thousands of working households deeper into poverty while undermining integration and family stability. At the heart of the issue is the interaction between immigration rules and welfare entitlements. Many migrant families who are legally employed fear that claiming benefits such as Universal Credit or housing support could negatively affect future immigration applications, including renewals of visas or applications for permanent residency. Fear of the “Public Funds” Rule Families subject to the “no recourse to public funds” (NRPF) condition are legally barred from claiming most state benefits. However, even migrants who are technically eligible for certain in-work benefits report widespread confusion and fear that making a claim could be interpreted as financial dependency on the state. Community organizations say this fear is not misplaced. Legal advisers have documented cases in which benefit claims were later cited during immigration reviews as evidence that applicants were not “financially self-sufficient.” “One family told us they stopped claiming support for their children’s food and rent because they were terrified it would be used against them,” said a senior adviser at a migrant rights charity. “They were working full-time but could not survive on their wages alone. This is a system that quietly punishes people for being honest.” Working but Still Struggling Many of those affected are key workers in sectors such as care, cleaning, hospitality, and delivery services. Despite long hours, low wages and rising living costs have left families dependent on top-up benefits to survive. A mother of three from Nigeria, who has lived in London for seven years, described the choice she faced: “If I claim help, I risk my visa. If I don’t, my children go hungry. Either way, we suffer.” Housing charities report a sharp rise in migrant families turning to food banks and emergency accommodation after voluntarily giving up benefits. Some parents have taken second or third jobs, while others have withdrawn children from school activities due to lack of money. Policy Under Scrutiny The Home Office maintains that migrants must demonstrate independence from public funds to qualify for long-term residency. Officials argue the rule protects taxpayers and ensures fairness within the immigration system. But critics say the policy is out of touch with economic reality. Rising rents, inflation, and childcare costs mean that even full-time work no longer guarantees financial security. Data shared with advocacy groups suggests that thousands of families who were previously claiming limited benefits have stopped doing so over the past two years, fearing immigration consequences. Legal experts warn this could lead to exploitation, as workers become more vulnerable to unsafe conditions and underpayment. Impact on Children Children are among the hardest hit. Schools in major cities such as London, Birmingham, and Manchester report increased hunger and absenteeism among pupils from migrant households. “Children should not be collateral damage of immigration enforcement,” said a child welfare campaigner. “Denying families access to basic support creates long-term harm to health, education, and social cohesion.” Medical professionals have also raised concerns about mental health. Stress, anxiety, and depression are increasingly reported among parents who feel trapped between poverty and the risk of deportation. Calls for Reform Pressure is growing on the government to reform the NRPF system and clarify rules around in-work benefits. Several MPs have called for temporary exemptions for families with children and for clearer guidance from the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office. Human rights groups argue that allowing working migrants access to limited benefits would reduce homelessness and reliance on emergency services, ultimately saving public money. For now, many families remain caught in silence and fear. “We came here to work, not to take,” said one father from Pakistan. “But when working is not enough to live, what choice do we have? The system makes us invisible.”
By Fiaz Ahmed 7 days ago in Humans
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.