‘Man I’m all torn up inside’: Analyzing audience responses to Making a Murderer

Abstract

Despite the preoccupation with media depictions of crime and criminal justice, few studies have employed qualitative methodologies to investigate how audience members engage with, react to, and interpret media content. This analysis of Reddit forums dedicated to the 2015 Netflix documentary series Making a Murderer reveals the wide range of responses to the series and demonstrates the value of looking to user-generated content on social media platforms to understand how we think and feel about crime-related matters. I argue that Reddit users’ reactions to the series are consistent with existing research outlining the complexity of the public’s views regarding criminal justice policy and these responses are intelligible when we consider the broader socio-political context in which the series was released. Particularly important, in my view, are individuals’ affective responses – including empathy, confusion, heartbreak, anger, frustration, fear, and helplessness – and the ways these emotions are linked with beliefs about the efficacy of the criminal justice system and the purposes of punishment. Consequently, this article buttresses recent calls to consider the entire spectrum of human emotions and to investigate the ways these emotions are related to our multifaceted beliefs about crime and criminal justice.

Keywords

Audience reception criminal justice attitudes emotions new media public opinion

Despite our preoccupation with media depictions of crime and criminal justice, only rarely have sociologists and criminologists employed qualitative methodologies to investigate the ways that audience members engage with, react to, and interpret media content. Prompted by the attention it received from the public upon its release (see, for example, Victor, 2016a), in this article I critically interrogate audience reception of the Netflix documentary series Making a Murderer (Ricciardi and Demos, 2015). Namely, I analyze multiple Reddit discussion forums to examine audience members’ responses to the series and specifically their views regarding the case, feelings about the parties involved, and beliefs about the criminal justice system.

The manuscript begins with a brief overview of Making a Murderer. Next, I review the literature that explores the relationship between crime media and society as well as existing audience reception research. After outlining the methodology, I examine Reddit users’ diverse reactions to the series. I argue that the nuance and complexity of these responses would remain hidden if scholars only conducted a textual analysis of the series; as such, this study illustrates the value of additional qualitative audience reception research. In the discussion section I attempt to make sense of Reddit authors’ responses to the series. I suggest their responses are consistent with existing research on public opinion and are intelligible when we consider the broader social and political context in which the series was released. More generally, I contend that Reddit users’ responses to Making a Murderer demonstrate that the way we think and feel about criminal justice is complex, even contradictory. I call for more research that examines and unpacks the entire spectrum of human emotions – beyond anger and fear – and suggest that this might help us better understand the public’s criminal justice attitudes. Analyzing user-generated content posted on social media platforms such as Reddit could be one way of approaching this task.

Overview of the series

The series, promoted as a ‘real-life thriller’, tracks Steven Avery of Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, a ‘DNA exoneree who, while exposing police corruption, becomes a suspect in a grisly new crime’ (Netflix, 2016). Steven Avery was convicted in the 1985 sexual assault of Penny Beernsten despite a lack of physical evidence connecting him to the crime, witness testimony that Avery was elsewhere at the time of the assault, and a viable alternative suspect seemingly disregarded by the sheriff and district attorney. Avery was exonerated and released from prison in 2003. In the fall of 2005, after Avery had filed a 36-million-dollar civil lawsuit against Manitowoc County and several officials involved in the investigation, Teresa Halbach disappeared. She was reportedly last seen at the Avery salvage lot where she had been taking photographs for the Auto Trader publication. Halbach’s car, human remains, and additional evidence were subsequently discovered on the Avery property and Avery was arrested and charged with the murder of Halbach. Avery, who has consistently maintained his innocence and alleged that county officials framed him, was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. Avery’s nephew, Brendan Dassey, who was 16 years of age and living on the property at the time of Halbach’s disappearance, was also charged and convicted in the murder following a since-recanted confession that a federal judge recently ruled violated his constitutional rights (Victor, 2016b). Making a Murderer follows the investigation, trials, verdicts, as well as some of the subsequent appeals, and raises a number of questions and concerns regarding how the case proceeded through the criminal justice system, including whether it was appropriate for Manitowoc law enforcement to be involved in the investigation and if they planted evidence implicating Avery in Halbach’s death, the competence and integrity of Dassey’s legal team, and the legitimacy of the interrogation that led to Dassey’s confession.

Crime media and audience effects

This emerging field in criminology is replete with studies that treat popular cultural products as texts to analyze. In this vein, scholars have examined individual television shows such as The Wire (e.g. Penfold-Mounce et al., 2011; Wakeman, 2014), movies (e.g. Horeck, 2014; O’Brien et al., 2005; Salzmann, 2011; Tzanelli et al., 2005), (sub)genres (e.g. Asimow, 2000; Bennett, 2014; Chase, 1986; Haddad, 2000; Kohm and Greenhill, 2011, 2014; Nellis, 2009; Rafter, 2007; Spitz, 2000), as well larger samples of films (e.g. Rafter, 2006; Welsh et al., 2011), through a sociological or criminological lens.

Notably, some of these scholars (e.g. Kohm, 2006; Kohm and Greenhill, 2011, 2014; Rafter, 2006) have attempted to trace the evolution of media representations of crime and justice and outline the ways in which these depictions align with broader political, economic, and cultural ideas. That is, these scholars have demonstrated that these popular cultural products emerge and exist in specific social contexts. They also help constitute those social contexts. In her pioneering study Shots in the Mirror, for example, Rafter (2006: 8) argues crime films are a cultural resource that ‘draw from and in turn shape social thought about crime and its players’. That is, media influence how we think about crime (e.g. Cavender, 2004), lawyers (e.g. Papke, 1999), and criminal justice (e.g. Harris, 1993), ultimately affecting what is thinkable or conceivable in response to violations of the law (Green, 2009). But popular films, television shows, and so on do not simply reflect hegemonic discourses. They can also encourage audience members to question and resist taken-for-granted ideas about the nature of deviance and the proper way(s) to respond to it (see, for example, Kohm and Greenhill, 2011; O’Brien et al., 2005; Wakeman, 2014; Welsh et al., 2011). In other words, these media do not just reproduce conventional beliefs, but also challenge them at times.

While these textual analyses can help us make sense of specific crime media and their relationship to society, much of the research in the field remains characterized by a disregard for or disinterest in the ways that audience members interpret or engage with said content. Despite acknowledging that the meaning of prison films – and other crime media – is ‘contingent’ and depends ‘on the frames of reference through which audiences view them’ (Nellis, 2009: 130) or that audience members ‘will carry away from films different bits of cultural information’ (Rafter, 2007: 416), too often scholars take for granted that all audience members interpret the media content in a singular way that aligns with the scholar’s own analysis. Doyle (2006) and others (see Bennett, 2014; Boda and Szabó, 2011; Gauntlett, 2005; Jewkes, 2015; Livingstone et al., 2001; Millwood Hargrave and Livingstone, 2009; Spitz, 2000) caution against presuming audiences are homogenous and lack agency.

One clear example of this approach to crime media is the longstanding debate regarding whether media consumption causes violent, aggressive, or deviant behavior, particularly among children and adolescents (see Barker and Petley, 2001; Gauntlett, 2005; Jewkes, 2015; Millwood Hargrave and Livingstone, 2009; Weaver and Carter, 2006). While the belief that violent media causes violence persists, in part, because it is a simple, straightforward explanation in the immediate aftermath of a heinous crime and easier than investigating the complex causes of violence, some scholars remain quite skeptical that this relationship exists (see Barker and Petley, 2001; Gauntlett, 2005; Jewkes, 2015; Millwood Hargrave and Livingstone, 2009). These scholars (see also Livingstone et al., 2001) remain wary because the studies that do point to this relationship are actually often ill-equipped to identify causality and because these studies imply that a homogenous audience – typically conceived of as uneducated, ignorant, and irrational individuals – passively accepts media messages.

In the wake of the growing recognition that we should not simply presume media effects, audience reception research has expanded in recent years as scholars have begun considering the different ways that audience members may react to or make sense of media content (see Barker and Petley, 2001; Livingstone et al., 2001). Examples include Palmer-Mehta and Hay (2006: 317), who find that reaction among comic book readers to an anti-gay hate crime plot in the Green Lantern series was ‘varied’, and Kitzinger (2006), who documents diverse responses to a feminist advertising campaign against sexual violence.

Extant work (e.g. Banks, 2005; Chiricos et al., 1997; Ditton et al., 2004; Eschholz et al., 2003; Gillespie and McLaughlin, 2002; Kohm et al., 2012; Kort-Butler and Sittner Hartshorn, 2011; Surette et al., 2011) has illustrated that media effects vary based on a number of factors, including whether or not individuals interpret the content as relevant to their lives, yet qualitative studies investigating audience reception are noticeably lacking. The few exceptions include Boda and Szabó (2011), who found that participants in focus groups echoed common media refrains on crime and justice, including beliefs that crime was increasing – despite empirical data indicating otherwise – and that the system was flawed. Along similar lines, in their attempt to make sense of the relationship between media consumption and fear of crime, Ditton et al. (2004) found that how respondents interpreted media content was more relevant than the frequency with which they consumed the media or any objective qualities of the content itself. Another example is De Bruin (2010), who conducted multiple group interviews with secondary school students in Amsterdam and Rotterdam to investigate how and why they watched two Dutch police series. And finally, as part of her analysis of Dear Zachary, Horeck (2014) considered responses to the documentary posted on websites like Amazon and IMDB.com.

Thus, despite the recognition that there are no uniform ‘media effects’ and that audience members play active roles in deciding which media to consume and how to interpret the content, for the most part scholars remain satisfied conducting textual analyses and overlooking how audiences engage with specific content. Audience reactions and interpretations remain worthy of examination because they provide us with insight into the public’s attitudes regarding crime, criminals, and punishment, and these opinions can impact policy development (see, for example, Enns, 2014; Garland, 2001; Tonry, 2004; Wozniak, 2016). As the present study illustrates, employing qualitative methodologies to examine these audience reactions highlights their nuance and complexity.

Data and methods

In late 2015 and early 2016 many of the people I know – though I conducted no formal survey to support this claim – were watching, and talking about, Making a Murderer. From conversations I had, debates I overheard, and social media posts I read over a span of several weeks, it seemed to me that the series had facilitated discussion, not just about the Avery and Dassey cases it chronicled, but about the criminal justice system more generally. This seemed like a rare opportunity and I set out to more rigorously investigate how audience members were interpreting and engaging with the series, something that we have just seen is lacking in the field.

Increasingly, criminologists have considered what the emergence of new media means for policing (e.g. Goldsmith, 2015; Trottier, 2015), moral panics (Fox, 2013), cases of sexual violence (e.g. Dodge, 2016; Powell, 2015), and prison life (Jewkes and Reisdorf, 2016). In this article I analyze user-generated content posted on Reddit so as to contribute to the literature on audience interpretation of crime and justice media. While it might be easy, as Ferguson et al. (2015) point out, to disregard online posts as inconsequential or thoughtless, this would be a mistake as online forums can help us understand how some individuals make sense of crime and view the criminal justice system. Researchers have just begun to recognize the value of user-generated content (see, for example, Altheide and Schneider, 2013; Simonetto, 2016), with Reddit being one platform.

Reddit users post links, media, and stories to individual communities, known as ‘subreddits’, with other users commenting and voting on these posts. In December of 2015, the month that Making a Murderer premiered on Netflix, there were 234 million unique visitors to Reddit and eight billion page views (Reddit Help, 2016). 54% of visitors were from the United States and the other 46% were classified as ‘international’ (Reddit Help, 2016). A 2016 survey revealed that, compared to the general population, Reddit users in the United States were more likely to be male, younger, have at least some post-secondary education, and identify as liberal (Barthel et al., 2016). While Netflix does not release information regarding viewership, Nielsen reports that those who pay for an online video streaming service like Netflix tend to be younger (Mittell, 2016; Nielsen, 2016). Though it is difficult to know for certain, based on this information we can speculate that the Making a Murderer audience is younger than the general population and that only some of the individuals who watched the series took the time to post on Reddit. In short, these data only reflect a subset of the Making a Murderer audience, which is itself a subset of the population. The findings should be interpreted with this in mind and it is important not to generalize beyond Reddit users.

I reviewed subreddits for each of Making a Murderer’s 10 episodes, the season one discussion ‘megathread’, and another ‘megathread’ in the legal advice subreddit. In total, I analyzed 6005 individual submissions/posts across 12 different forums. Individual posts ranged from one word to multiple pages in length and sometimes they touched on a variety of themes. I played an active role throughout the research process (see Braun and Clarke, 2006). At the outset, I narrowed the scope of the research. Specifically, two broad research questions informed my reading of the forums: With whom did Reddit authors identify? How did they feel about or react to the events depicted in the series? I read through the entirety of each of the forums and identified broad themes relating to these research questions (e.g. inequality, systemic issues, emotions, activism, misconduct). Next, I selected themes I found most interesting and read through the forums again, this time looking for variation within the themes and for the way the themes were interconnected. In this article I provide a more thorough and nuanced account of several select and – what I consider – important themes, rather than a representative description of the entire data set (see Braun and Clarke, 2006).

Prior to discussing the findings and their implications, it is worth acknowledging limitations of these data and the project. First, I am unable to know whether there were patterns in the way audience members interpreted Making a Murderer. I am unable to discern, for instance, if interpretations of the series varied based on age, race, gender, income, educational level, prior victimization, prior contact with the criminal justice system, and the like. This is certainly worth investigating, not just for Making a Murderer, but for crime and justice media more generally (see also Chiricos et al., 1997). Second, these data do not permit causal claims about the effects of viewing the series since there was no way to systematically measure Reddit users’ prior attitudes and beliefs about crime and justice. And third, it is possible that because Making a Murderer is a documentary series that claims to be presenting reality (remember that it is promoted as a ‘real-life thriller’ on the Netflix website), there is a ‘particular resonance’ for audience members that makes their engagement with it different than other media and the messages contained within ‘all the more potent’ (Bennett, 2014: 38; Kohm, 2006: 695). On this topic, Cavender and Fishman (1998) contend that, despite the suggestion that they present reality, television reality crime programs often lack objectivity and present ‘reality’ in an entertaining manner. Both observers (e.g. Schulz, 2016) and some Reddit users criticized Making a Murderer for omitting important details and lacking objectivity. Furthermore, scholars (Cavender and Fishman, 1998; Kohm, 2009) have suggested that reality crime programs tend to promote the status quo because they portray crime as a serious issue and a punitive law and order approach as the remedy. In other words, while suggesting that they present some sort of objective ‘truth’, reality crime programs guide viewers in particular directions. I am not interested in unpacking the filmmakers’ narrative, however. Instead of treating Making a Murderer as a text to analyze, I examine the complex and diverse ways some audience members engaged with, interpreted, and responded to the series and explore what this could tell us about our criminal justice attitudes.

Findings

Fairness and (in)justice: Making sense of misconduct and murder

In line with the limited existing research (Kitzinger, 2006; Palmer-Mehta and Hay, 2006), Reddit users responded to the events depicted in Making a Murderer in a variety of ways. Many Reddit authors believed that an injustice had occurred when Avery and Dassey were convicted of and subsequently imprisoned for the murder of Teresa Halbach. Specifically, Reddit users suggested that law enforcement officers, District Attorney Ken Kratz, Dassey’s lawyers, and/or the judges presiding over the cases were incompetent, unethical, or had engaged in some form of misconduct – and that this had wrongly caused Avery and/or Dassey harm – in a total of 434 posts.¹ One Reddit author, for instance, suggested that every party involved in the case had erred in some way. This person admits that ‘it is so scary to think that the system failed at every level- the scum local police and county law enforcement, the obviously-biased scum Judge Willis, the State, the public defenders, and the jurors’. Another Reddit user echoed these thoughts, but put it more profanely: ‘we’re talking about two human beings [Avery and Dassey] who have been fucked in every way imaginable by the court systems and a corrupt sheriff’s department’. And in the opinion of one Reddit author, ‘after viewing the series one can conclusively say that the local law enforcement was tampering with the evidence/case and that neither the investigation nor trial was “fair”’. For these Reddit users and others, then, the entire process was unjust.

Other critiques were focused on individual actors. For instance, a number of commenters remarked on the apparent bias of the judges. On this issue one Reddit author suggested that ‘the judge obviously didn’t give a fuck about facts’. Other forum participants denounced the actions of Brendan Dassey’s legal counsel, Len Kachinsky. One commenter, for example, argued that Kachinsky was ‘an incompetent scumbag who set [Brendan] up’. For their part, another Reddit author contended that ‘all the police and Kratz are corrupt and evil. There is no justice in this town. I’d not be surprised if one of those cops killed Teresa to have a crime to pin on Steven Avery’. Other Reddit commenters shared the belief that the police might have been actively involved in the murder of Teresa Halbach, presumably as part of a larger conspiracy. In one person’s view, it was ‘completely plausible that the Sheriff’s Department killed her or had her killed’. In sum, many Reddit users believed that criminal justice personnel were incompetent, corrupt, or engaged in criminal activity.

Other Reddit users suggested that the series was important because it called attention to broader issues that extend beyond the Avery and Dassey cases and impact the operation of the US criminal justice system as a whole. These shortcomings were identified in 112 different posts. One Reddit author, for instance, suggested that the ‘series was more an indictment of our criminal justice system and its many flaws than about exonerating an innocent man’. Reddit commenters identified several significant flaws in the system that had been highlighted in Making a Murderer. One of these was the focus on obtaining convictions rather than seeking truth. For example, one Reddit user argued ‘if there’s one takeaway from this show, no matter who committed the murder, it’s that the justice system is only concerned with convictions. It’s really disheartening’. Along these lines, another Reddit user shared how this made them feel; they wrote: ‘a justice system is supposed to seek truth, not conviction. It is beyond sad, something akin to despair, that no one in that entire ordeal sought truth, only punishment’. Other participants in the forums noted that the series illustrated ‘the justice system’s lack of fairness specifically in regards to a man being innocent until proven guilty’, the ‘sad reality’ about the lack of police accountability, and the shortcomings of a jury system where ‘12 random people … that have no clue about forensic evidence and could easily be swayed by a charismatic lawyer or be biased from the media or be biased altogether from the start’ are asked to determine guilt. Thus, while some Reddit users focused narrowly on the Avery and Dassey cases, others reflected on the shortcomings of the criminal justice system. This demonstrates that Reddit commenters had a range of reactions to Making a Murderer.

While the comments reviewed so far are all critical of the system or those criminal justice personnel involved in the case, other Reddit users disagreed with this dominant perspective. While small in number – only 12 – some submissions revealed doubts that there had been any police corruption or prosecutorial misconduct at all. This shows clearly that some viewers resisted the series’ narrative. On this topic, for instance, one Reddit user wrote they had ‘not seen any evidence of evidence being planted’ while another suggested that the ‘cops are not corrupt, nor did the[y] plant evidence. They were just wrong’.

Similarly, some Reddit authors considered the possibility that Steven Avery and, less frequently, Brendan Dassey were involved in the murder of Teresa Halbach. This was another way that some individuals rejected the series’ narrative. Reddit commenters acknowledged that Avery ‘may have done it’ or that they were ‘not convinced’ of his innocence or that they were ‘still in a state of uncertainty’ about the matter or the like in 58 forum posts. Along these lines, another Reddit author believed ‘there is a very real possibility that Avery is in fact the murderer’. At times Reddit users were skeptical about Avery’s innocence because they realized that some information was left out of Making a Murderer and that ‘we do get a very one sided documentary’. Similarly, another Reddit user advised not to ‘automatically presume Avery is innocent’, in part because the series was ‘very well edited to show only one side of the story, Steven Avery’s’. Others were more certain of Avery’s guilt, with one Reddit author writing ‘there is no reasonable explanation but that [Avery] killed her’. While these posts represent a small minority of all submissions, the nuance and heterogeneity of responses would remain hidden from view if scholars only engaged in textual analyses of crime media content.

To recap, Reddit users had many different reactions to Making a Murderer. Some focused more on the particularities of the Halbach murder investigation, while others were more concerned with the limitations of the criminal justice system. Similarly, there was an assortment of responses to the suggestion that law enforcement and other state officials were involved in misconduct. In other words, audience members engaged with the series in various ways, interpreted the material differently, and assigned unique meanings. This illustrates the importance of investigating audience reception rather than assuming uniform effects (see also Bennett, 2014; Boda and Szabó, 2011; Doyle, 2006; Gauntlett, 2005; Jewkes, 2015; Livingstone et al., 2001; Millwood Hargrave and Livingstone, 2009; Spitz, 2000).

Empathy, heartbreak, and frustration: Feeling for Avery and Dassey

In this section of the article I examine Reddit users’ affective responses to the series. Here again the diversity of emotional reactions underscores the need to investigate audience engagement rather than assume homogeneous effects. There was, for example, some disagreement about who might find themselves in a similar situation to Steven Avery or Brendan Dassey. On the one hand, a small number of Reddit posts (n = 4) relayed a belief that anyone could find themselves wrongfully convicted and incarcerated – implying mistrust in the system and of those working in it – and this belief generated anxiety and fear. For instance, as one commenter opined, ‘the scariest thing about this to me is that if it can happen to Steven, it can happen to me, to you- to your loved ones’. Another Reddit user echoed this, noting the ‘series is so upsetting. This could easily happen to ANY of us’.

On the other hand, several Reddit authors (n = 5) argued that the inequality that pervades the criminal justice system meant that only individuals from certain socio-economic groups would find themselves in similar positions to Avery and Dassey. Some people who believed this expressed fear, experienced sadness, and felt a sense of injustice. On this topic one individual wrote that ‘only poor, and uneducated would be placed and stuck in a position like this’. The author continued, admitting that it was ‘very sad it happened to Steven Avery, but I can’t see myself being in the same position as him. Sorry but just being honest’. This perspective was not uncommon, as there were several dozen submissions (n = 35) that suggested the US criminal justice system simply does not work for or disproportionately harms those lacking income and formal education. One Reddit author, for example, remarked that this case is ‘an example of how unfair the justice system is to people of lower socio-economic status’. Another admitted that ‘our justice system in this country is so broken I’m afraid it will never serve any citizen, particularly the poor and disadvantaged’. Thus, like the two Dutch police series examined by De Bruin (2010), Making a Murderer provided audience members with an opportunity, or perhaps a reason, to discuss larger issues like class and racial inequality, access to education, differences between life in urban and rural areas, and the efficacy and fairness of the criminal justice system. It is also clear that some Reddit users had strong feelings about the operation of the criminal justice system.

While many representations of prisoners and punishment promote social distance between the criminalized and the ‘penal spectators’ that consume popular culture (Brown, 2009; see also Ferguson et al., 2015; Fiander et al., 2016; Walby and Piché, 2011), Making a Murderer bridged the divide in some instances. In fact, Reddit authors suggested that they felt compassion for Avery, Dassey, and/or their families in 58 instances. A few examples are illustrative. In one case a Reddit user wondered:

Am I the only one that still feels bad for Steven? I mean, maybe he did it, we’ll probably never know. Personally I don’t believe so, but his poor family has just been destroyed by this. I feel horrible for Brendan, as well. But Steven spent 18 years in prison for a crime he didn’t do, and now the rest of his life is being wasted over what should have been a mistrial. Brendan still has some hope. Avery’s life is wasting away, lost Jodi, and his family is absolutely wrecked. I feel awful for his parents.

Along these lines, another commenter wrote ‘even if I think Steven did it, the way the investigation and trial went made me more empathetic toward a defendant and his family than any other case I’ve ever followed’. These two Reddit authors – and others – identified with and felt compassion for the defendants and their families, without much regard for their guilt. Similarly, another Reddit user shared the following: ‘Here I am, feeling like complete crap, feeling sorry for the Avery family, the Dassey’s … no hope. This is terrible. I truly hope this series will spark something that’ll get them out’. Thus, for some online commenters there was an acknowledgement of the harm caused by the criminal justice system and their empathy for Avery and Dassey meant them experiencing this pain – or at least some emotional pain – vicariously (see Brown, 2009). This compassion for Avery and Dassey aligns with extant literature demonstrating that, when given more information about a particular case, including the criminalized person’s background, motive, and so on, individuals tend to identify with this person and are less punitive (e.g. Gillespie and McLaughlin, 2002; Warner and Davis, 2012).

In contrast, a small number of posts (n = 6) revealed that not all Reddit users felt compassion or empathy for Avery and Dassey. In response to the ‘offhand way’ Avery discussed a previous incident of animal cruelty, for instance, one Reddit user wrote ‘I lost any compassion for Steven very early on’. Several other Reddit authors felt similarly. Whether they believed Avery was ‘not a good guy’ or admitted that they ‘don’t feel too bad for Brendan’ because he ‘lied so many different times’, this is further evidence that some Reddit users rejected the dominant narrative and responded to the series in many different ways.

Making a Murderer generated strong emotional reactions among a large number of Reddit users and these, oftentimes complex and multifaceted, feelings sometimes shed light on the ways individuals conceived of the criminal justice system. The sizeable number of posts (n = 306) to this effect indicates some level of emotional investment in the outcome of the cases and the fates of the individuals involved, particularly the accused. Once more, several examples are demonstrative and suggest an association between Reddit users’ feelings and their attitudes toward the criminal justice system. While one Reddit author wrote, ‘I just want to cry. All of this is just so awful, I mean you just feel so powerless watching the system fail to keep itself in check’, another added ‘It’s so heartbreaking. I can’t think about it too much or else I start crying. Just so sad’. Others expressed anger – ‘this show is getting me angry as hell’ – and frustration – ‘Ugh I need another glass of wine .. This is frustrating ..’ – at the events depicted in Making a Murderer. Another poster lamented that they would be unable to enjoy Christmas vacation ‘knowing Brendon [sic] and Steven are locked in cages like dogs. :(’. And finally, one commenter reflected on the various emotions they felt:

I don’t stay up late thinking about it anymore but it’s always in my mind. The initial anger wears off, so I guess it’s better in that way, but I’m still angry. And confused. And feeling helpless. I guess I could just sum it up as feeling very hurt. Kinda shaken to the core, that such an injustice was allowed to go on.

These feelings were at times linked to Reddit users’ beliefs about how to respond to the events depicted in the series. This is the focus of the next section.

Petitions, punches, and prison: What should be done?

The subreddits dedicated to Making a Murderer, as illustrated above, contained much discussion of forum participants’ feelings regarding the case and the individuals involved. There were also disparate opinions regarding what, if anything, should be done next. For example, some Reddit users debated the merits of signing online petitions designed to pardon Avery and Dassey. While one Reddit author believed signing an online petition was ‘worthless feel-good lazy activism’, others believed that it was ‘as much as the average person can do’ and that it could ‘increase pressure on the appropriate individuals or groups to take action’. Another Reddit user acknowledged ‘obviously the president isn’t going to pardon Steven’, but maintained that attaching one’s name to an online petition ‘helps grow attention to the cause and show a tangible movement to people who haven’t seen the show yet’. The strong emotional investment of some Reddit authors and the hundreds of thousands of individuals hoping to effect change or bring attention to the case by signing online petitions (Victor, 2016a) illustrates a move beyond spectatorship (see Brown, 2009). Perhaps this is because Making a Murderer is a reality program (see also Bennett, 2014; Kohm, 2006); as one Reddit user wrote, ‘because it is real it can evoke all emotions so more genuine than when watching a drama series’.

Other forum participants had strong feelings regarding how to respond to the law enforcement officers, lawyers, and judges they thought had been engaged in wrongdoing. These comments are able to provide us with insight into some citizens’ beliefs about the objectives of punishment and the efficacy of the criminal justice system. In fact, Reddit authors argued that those guilty of corruption or misconduct should be subject to some sort of legal or physical punishment in 44 submissions. Some Reddit authors, for instance, advocated physical violence against Brendan Dassey’s appointed lawyer, Len Kachinsky, and Kachinsky’s investigator, Michael O’Kelly. On this topic one Reddit user wrote: ‘I would rarely encourage the breaking of one’s kneecaps with a baseball bat but with Len Kachinsky, I’d happily bash those caps to smithereens’. Another author suggested that O’Kelly ‘should be punched in the dick’ as punishment for ‘doing what he did’. And yet another forum participant shared their hope that ‘the cops that were responsible for this die in the most fucking painful way possible’. These individuals, then, endorsed retribution against wrongdoers – in this case those who had caused harm to Avery and Dassey – and believed they should be subject to physical pain.

While some Reddit commenters believed law enforcement officers should be investigated and Kachinsky disbarred, others went further and suggested that the way to respond was to prosecute and incarcerate these individuals. This next author is disgusted with the law enforcement officers who interrogated Dassey and believes that shaming and incarceration is the proper resolution:

the investigators that questioned Brendan should be ashamed of themselves and should be locked away themselves for how they so willingly stole this boys life from him … its sickening and gut wrenching and every single person involved in this whole cover up should really be aware that karma is coming for them big time.

This was true even when it was not clear what the actual criminal offence was. For instance, in one commenter’s view O’Kelly ‘should be in prison for what he did to Brendan. Unbelievable how biased he was and how he totally ignored any professional duty he had’. Referring to former Manitowoc Chief Deputy Eugene Kusche, another individual wrote ‘fuck him. Even if Avery is guilty that scum should rot in jail’. Reddit commenters also targeted Prosecutor Ken Kratz for criticism. In this example, the author shared their hate for Kratz and suggested he be sent to prison:

let it be known I H A T E Ken Kratz with the fury of 10,000 burning suns. From his mealy fem voice to his gloating and condescension towards the defense, he makes me sick. I can only hope & pray that there is an investigation opened into misconduct and he gets to sit his swishy ass in prison.

And as part of a discussion about which person – Kratz, Kachinsky, O’Kelly, and several of the law enforcement officers – was the worst, another Reddit user simply stated ‘all of those pricks should be facing the years Steven and Brendan are currently facing’.

Other commenters shared their hopes for ‘justice’ with the Reddit community. One author, for instance, wrote:

I hope they [Avery and Dassey] are exonerated and paid enough in restitution to force a thorough cleansing of the unethical scum from the Manitowac [sic] police department … But I don’t think I’ll consider justice served until these pukes responsible are serving time of their own. Dragging their names through some of the sludge they helped create is a nice start (and I hope they are having trouble showing their faces around town), but nothing, save jail time, can make them understand the consequences of their actions on those families …

And another user remarked that it would be ‘cool’ to see a future episode:

called ‘Justice Served’ where they [Avery and Dassey] both get a fair trail [sic], with a badass judge who tears apart all the soulless assholes involved. Just slings out 20 and 30 year sentences like a kid on a bike delivering newspapers.

Some Reddit users, then, felt anger, frustration, disgust, and disappointment with the law enforcement officers and attorneys involved in the Halbach investigation and trial. This is interesting because, despite believing the criminal justice system had failed in this case and had harmed Avery and Dassey, these commenters still supported the incarceration of suspected criminals and suggested that the purposes of punishment were retribution, shaming, and the infliction of pain. I explore these seemingly contradictory views in the discussion section.

Discussion

As a number of scholars (see Doyle, 2006; Kohm, 2006; Kohm and Greenhill, 2011, 2014; Kohm et al., 2012; Livingstone et al., 2001; Rafter, 2006) have shown or argued, it is important to consider the social, political, and economic context in which media content is produced and consumed. In this section of the article I do just that. In over 430 posts, Reddit authors expressed a belief that criminal justice system personnel were incompetent, corrupt, and/or had engaged in misconduct. For example, some Reddit users believed it was ‘common knowledge police lie and lie frequently’, while others contended that ‘the system has no accountability. Misconduct is rampant and there are no sanctions, it’s infuriating!!’. I argue that these reactions make sense given the documentary was released in the midst of an (inter)national conversation about police powers, accountability, and violence following the killings of a number of racialized individuals during interactions with police or while in custody (see Wozniak, 2016).

While it is impossible to know how much this context informed viewers’ reactions to the series, several Reddit users made explicit connections between Making a Murderer and these killings. For instance, one Reddit user suggested that the police officers involved in the case ‘just coordinated the most dickish thing you could do to someone’ and that they could ‘have done Avery a better service by just shooting him dead like the rest of our cops are doing with innocent Black Americans’, while someone else asserted that ‘if Steven Avery was black he would have been dead by now’. Another Reddit user felt that given recent acts of police violence have gone unpunished this case ‘doesn’t do much to discount the notion that the system is fundamentally broken’. In short, the willingness of some Reddit users to accept law enforcement and prosecutorial misconduct in the Avery and Dassey cases might be linked to the broader conversation about police corruption and lack of oversight and accountability currently taking place.

As outlined above, some Reddit authors empathized with Avery and Dassey, recognized the harm caused to them by the criminal justice system, and believed that the system failed in this case, yet still held that incarceration and physical punishment were appropriate responses to those officers, investigators, and prosecutors who had purportedly engaged in misconduct and/or violated the law. In other words, some Reddit authors identified serious flaws in the criminal justice system but were unwilling or unable to imagine a different way of dealing with people who commit crimes. While seemingly paradoxical, this too is comprehensible given Making a Murderer was released during a period of piecemeal criminal justice reform. Specifically, in recent years a number of jurisdictions in the US have reformed sentencing practices and parole policies so as to reduce costs and the size of the prison population (see, for example, Beckett et al., 2016; Green, 2015). Critics warn, however, that these reforms do not represent a wholesale transformation of punishment or a ‘paradigm shift’ (Beckett et al., 2016: 254). Instead, these progressive reforms have been targeted at ‘deserving’ individuals like those sent to prison for nonviolent drug offences, while the penalties for ‘undeserving’ individuals – such as those convicted of violent crimes or sex offences – have remained the same or even been ratcheted up (Beckett et al., 2016). There are concerns that drawing these boundaries or making these distinctions among criminalized individuals will ensure that criminal justice reform will continue to occur on the margins and limit the potential for real change (Beckett et al., 2016). The possibility of comprehensive reform, some scholars (Beckett et al., 2016; Green, 2015) argue, rests on humanizing those impacted by mass incarceration.

While there is some debate amongst observers (e.g. Findley, 2016; Lopez, 2016; Schulz, 2016) regarding whether Making a Murderer encourages deliberation about widespread reform, the diverse and complex – even paradoxical – responses of some Reddit authors to the series is in line with these piecemeal reform efforts directed at a relatively small number of incarcerated persons deemed worthy. That is, Making a Murderer fostered empathy and bridged social distance, ensuring that for at least some Reddit users Avery and Dassey are rendered ‘deserving’ individuals in need of some relief. In contrast, the police, investigators, and attorneys in Manitowoc County who violated the public trust (presuming they are guilty of corruption and misconduct) were not humanized in the series. Consequently, they remain ‘undeserving’ recipients of our compassion and ‘undeserving’ beneficiaries of efforts to reduce the use of incarceration and imagine a new system not grounded in retribution.

The seemingly contradictory responses of some Reddit authors to these cases are also consistent with much of the existing scholarly work on public opinion. In response to the claim that the ‘public’ has become increasingly punitive in recent years and that this precludes support for rehabilitation, a number of scholars (e.g. Hutton, 2005; Maguire and Johnson, 2015; Mascini and Houtman, 2006; Unnever et al., 2010) have argued that citizens hold complex views regarding criminal justice policy and that we must adopt the appropriate methodologies and ask the appropriate questions to tap into them. They note that people recognize crime is a complicated matter and are quite capable of supporting progressive measures and repressive measures simultaneously. Pickett and Baker (2014: 196) express reservations about this body of work, however, and suggest that this ‘pragmatism’ might be ‘an artifact of the methodology’ and specifically acquiescent survey responses. The present study supports the body of research suggesting that the way we think and feel about criminal justice is complex, even contradictory, without any concerns about acquiescence among survey respondents.

Perhaps an increased focus on the emotions we feel will offer additional insight into our views regarding crime, criminalized individuals, and punishment. Scholars (e.g. Garland, 2001; Karstedt, 2002: 299; Kohm, 2009; Loader, 2005; Pratt, 2000; Van Stokkom, 2002) have discussed the ‘re-emotionalization’ of criminal justice in recent years, pointing to the role of forgiveness, remorse, and shame in restorative justice initiatives and the anger, fear, and humiliation helping to underpin more punitive practices. Despite the growing recognition of the import of feelings for shaping criminal justice attitudes, empirical studies investigating this connection are rare (Canton, 2015; De Haan and Loader, 2002; Freiberg, 2001; Hartnagel and Templeton, 2012; Johnson, 2009). In fact, recent research (see, for example, Hartnagel and Templeton, 2012; Johnson, 2009) seems preoccupied with the association between anger, fear, and punitiveness, despite prior work (Feather et al., 2001; Graham et al., 1997; Haddock and Zanna, 1998; Unnever and Cullen, 2009, 2010; Unnever et al., 2005) indicating that other emotions, including disgust, happiness, empathy, racial hostility or intolerance, and sympathy, are related to views on capital punishment, sentencing, and general punitiveness. As the Reddit forums analyzed here illustrate, individuals feel – whether it is compassion for alleged offenders, mistrust in and fear of police, and/or anger and disgust at criminal justice officials – strongly about these matters and these feelings are related to their beliefs about the purposes of punishment, the efficacy and legitimacy of the criminal justice system, and the appropriate ways to resolve disputes or respond to rule violations. While anger, fear, and hate certainly inform views on crime and punishment, continuing to ignore the wide spectrum of human emotions will ensure our understanding of these views remains incomplete.

Conclusion

This analysis of Reddit discussion forums reveals the wide range of audience interpretations and responses to Making a Murderer. Specifically, while some Reddit users believed it was ‘OBVIOUS’ that ‘everyone in the justice system was trying to railroad him’, others were ‘disappointed to learn that our justice system is historically full of misconduct’. Along similar lines, some forum participants believed anyone could be wrongfully convicted, while others held that a flawed criminal justice system disproportionately victimized racialized individuals, those experiencing poverty, and those lacking educational opportunities. When discussing these matters, Reddit authors also expressed a multitude of emotions, ranging from frustration to anger to heartbreak to disgust to fear to confusion, sometimes simultaneously. It is clear, then, that Reddit users engaged with Making a Murderer in a multitude of ways. Consequently, it is a mistake to assume that all audience members passively receive crime media messages in the same way (see also Boda and Szabó, 2011; Doyle, 2006; Gauntlett, 2005; Jewkes, 2015; Livingstone et al., 2001; Millwood Hargrave and Livingstone, 2009). Instead, researchers should employ qualitative or mixed-methodologies to examine how individuals actively interpret crime and justice media content. This study also clearly demonstrates that there is value in giving due consideration to our affective responses to crime, criminalized individuals, and punishment (see also Canton, 2015; De Haan and Loader, 2002; Freiberg, 2001; Hartnagel and Templeton, 2012; Johnson, 2009) and in examining how our emotions are linked to our complex ideas regarding criminal justice policy. This project alerts criminologists and sociologists to the value of ‘alternative’ methodologies that may be employed to investigate these very questions. Comments posted on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, or the like provide a window into how citizens comprehend issues related to crime, criminals, and justice, and should be taken seriously by scholars.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author biography

Liam Kennedy is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology, King’s University College at Western University Canada. His research examines representations of crime, deviance, and punishment and the experiences of criminalized individuals.

References

Altheide

Schneider

(2013) Qualitative Media Analysis. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Asimow

(2000) Bad lawyers in the movies. Nova Law Review 24(2): 533–591.

Banks

(2005) Spaces of (in) security: Media and fear of crime in a local context. Crime, Media, Culture 1(2): 169–187.

Barker

Petley

(2001) Introduction: From bad research to good – a guide for the perplexed. In: Barker

Petley

(eds) Ill Effects: The Media/Violence Debate. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–26.

Barthel

Stocking

Holcomb

. (2016) Nearly eight-in-ten Reddit users get news on the site. Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2016/02/25/reddit-news-users-more-likely-to-be-male-young-and-digital-in-their-news-preferences/ (accessed 25 September 2016).

Beckett

Reosti

Knaphus

(2016) The end of an era? Understanding the contradictions of criminal justice reform. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 664(1): 238–259.

Bennett

(2014) Repression and revolution: Representations of criminal justice and prisons in recent documentaries. Prison Service Journal 214: 33–38.

Boda

Szabó

(2011) The media and attitudes towards crime and the justice system: A qualitative approach. European Journal of Criminology 8(4): 329–342.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

10.

Brown

(2009) The Culture of Punishment: Prison, Society, and Spectacle. New York: New York University Press.

11.

Canton

(2015) Crime, punishment and the moral emotions: Righteous minds and their attitudes towards punishment. Punishment & Society 17(1): 54–72.

12.

Cavender

(2004) Media and crime policy: A reconsideration of David Garland’s The culture of control. Punishment & Society 6(3): 335–348.

13.

Cavender

Fishman

(1998) Television reality crime programs: Context and history. In: Fishman

Cavender

(eds) Entertaining Crime: Television Reality Programs. New York: Walter de Gruyter Inc., pp. 1–15.

14.

Chase

(1986) Lawyers and popular culture: A review of mass media portrayals of American attorneys. American Bar Foundation Research Journal 11(2): 281–300.

15.

Chiricos

Eschholz

Gertz

(1997) Crime, news and fear of crime: Toward an identification of audience effects. Social Problems 44(3): 342–357.

16.

De Bruin

(2010) Young people and police series: A multicultural television audience study. Crime, Media, Culture 6(3): 309–328.

17.

De Haan

Loader

(2002) On the emotions of crime, punishment and social control. Theoretical Criminology 6(3): 243–253.

18.

Ditton

Chadee

Farrall

. (2004) From imitation to intimidation: A note on the curious and changing relationship between the media, crime and fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology 44(4): 595–610.

19.

Dodge

(2016) Digitizing rape culture: Online sexual violence and the power of the digital photograph. Crime, Media, Culture 12(1): 65–82.

20.

Doyle

(2006) How not to think about crime in the media. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 48(6): 867–885.

21.

Enns

(2014) The public’s increasing punitiveness and its influence on mass incarceration in the United States. American Journal of Political Science 58(4): 857–872.

22.

Eschholz

Chiricos

Gertz

(2003) Television and fear of crime: Program types, audience traits, and the mediating effect of perceived neighborhood racial composition. Social Problems 50(3): 395–415.

23.

Feather

Boeckmann

McKee

(2001) Jail sentence, community service, or compensation? Predicting reactions to a serious corporate offence. Australian Journal of Psychology 53(2): 92–102.

24.

Ferguson

Piché

Walby

(2015) Bridging or fostering social distance? An analysis of penal spectator comments on Canadian penal history museums. Crime, Media, Culture 11(3): 357–374.

25.

Fiander

Chen

Piché

. (2016) Critical punishment memorialization in Canada. Critical Criminology 24(1): 1–18.

26.

Findley

(2016) The lessons from ‘Making a Murderer’. The Washington Post, 17 January, p. A27.

27.

Fox

(2013) Incurable sex offenders, lousy judges & the media: Moral panic sustenance in the age of new media. American Journal of Criminal Justice 38(1): 160–181.

28.

Freiberg

(2001) Affective versus effective justice: Instrumentalism and emotionalism in criminal justice. Punishment & Society 3(2): 265–278.

29.

Garland

(2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

30.

Gauntlett

(2005) Moving Experiences: Media Effects and Beyond. 2nd edn. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

31.

Gillespie

McLaughlin

(2002) Media and the shaping of public attitudes. Criminal Justice Matters 49: 8–9, 23.

32.

Goldsmith

(2015) Disgracebook policing: Social media and the rise of police indiscretion. Policing and Society 25(3): 249–267.

33.

Graham

Weiner

Zucker

(1997) An attributional analysis of punishment goals and public reactions to O. J. Simpson. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23(4): 331–346.

34.

Green

(2009) Feeding wolves: Punitiveness and culture. European Journal of Criminology 6(6): 517–536.

35.

Green

(2015) US penal-reform catalysts, drivers, and prospects. Punishment & Society 17(3): 271–298.

36.

Haddad

(2000) Silver tongues on the silver screen: Legal ethics in the movies. Nova Law Review 24(2): 673–700.

37.

Haddock

Zanna

(1998) Assessing the impact of affective and cognitive information in predicting attitudes toward capital punishment. Law and Human Behavior 22(3): 325–339.

38.

Harris

(1993) The appearance of justice: Court TV, conventional television, and public understanding of the criminal justice system. Arizona Law Review 35(4): 785–827.

39.

Hartnagel

Templeton

(2012) Emotions about crime and attitudes to punishment. Punishment & Society 14(4): 452–474.

40.

Horeck

(2014) ‘A film that will rock you to your core’: Emotion and affect in Dear Zachary and the real crime documentary. Crime, Media, Culture 10(2): 151–167.

41.

Hutton

(2005) Beyond populist punitiveness? Punishment & Society 7(3): 243–258.

42.

Jewkes

(2015) Media & Crime. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

43.

Jewkes

Reisdorf

(2016) A brave new world: The problems and opportunities presented by new media technologies in prisons. Criminology & Criminal Justice 16(5): 534–551.

44.

Johnson

(2009) Anger about crime and support for punitive criminal justice practices. Punishment & Society 11(1): 51–66.

45.

Karstedt

(2002) Emotions and criminal justice. Theoretical Criminology 6(3): 299–317.

46.

Kitzinger

(2006) Zero tolerance: Public responses to a feminist anti-sexual violence advertising campaign. In: Weaver

Carter

(eds) Critical readings: Violence and the Media. New York: Open University Press, pp. 331–345.

47.

Kohm

(2006) The people’s law versus Judge Judy justice: Two models of law in American reality-based courtroom TV. Law & Society Review 40(3): 693–727.

48.

Kohm

(2009) Naming, shaming and criminal justice: Mass-mediated humiliation as entertainment and punishment. Crime, Media, and Culture 5(2): 188–205.

49.

Kohm

Greenhill

(2011) Pedophile crime films as popular criminology: A problem of justice? Theoretical Criminology 15(2): 195–215.

50.

Kohm

Greenhill

(2014) Little Red Riding Hood crime films: Critical variations on criminal themes. Law, Culture and the Humanities 10(2): 257–278.

51.

Kohm

Waid-Lindberg

Weinrath

. (2012) The impact of media on fear of crime among university students: A cross-national comparison. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 54(1): 67–100.

52.

Kort-Butler

Sittner Hartshorn

(2011) Watching the detectives: Crime programming, fear of crime, and attitudes about the criminal justice system. The Sociological Quarterly 52(1): 36–55.

53.

Livingstone

Allen

Reiner

(2001) Audiences for crime media 1946–91: A historical approach to reception studies. The Communication Review 4(2): 165–192.

54.

Loader

(2005) The affects of punishment: Emotions, democracy and penal politics. Criminal Justice Matters 60: 12–13.

55.

Lopez

(2016) Netflix’s Making a Murderer exposes flaws that go far beyond Steven Avery’s trial. Vox, 15 January. Available at: http://www.vox.com/2016/1/12/10755690/netflix-making-a-murderer-avery-guilty (accessed 10 April 2017).

56.

Maguire

Johnson

(2015) The structure of public opinion on crime policy: Evidence from seven Caribbean nations. Punishment & Society 17(4): 502–530.

57.

Mascini

Houtman

(2006) Rehabilitation and repression: Reassessing their ideological embeddedness. British Journal of Criminology 46(5): 822–836.

58.

Millwood Hargrave

Livingstone

(2009) Harm and Offence in Media Content: A Review of the Evidence. 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

59.

Mittell

(2016) Why Netflix doesn’t release its ratings. The Atlantic, 23 February. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/02/netflix-ratings/462447/ (accessed 10 April 2017).

60.

Nellis

(2009) The aesthetics of redemption: Released prisoners in American film and literature. Theoretical Criminology 13(1): 129–146.

61.

Netflix (2016) Making a murderer. Available at: https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/80000770 (accessed 15 January 2016).

62.

Nielsen (2016) On-demand demographics: VOD viewing across generations. Available at: http://www.nielsen.com/ca/en/insights/news/2016/on-demand-demographics-vod-viewing-across-generations.html (accessed 10 April 2017).

63.

O’Brien

Tzanelli

Yar

. (2005) “The spectacle of fearsome acts”: Crime in the melting p(l)ot in Gangs of New York. Critical Criminology 13(1): 17–35.

64.

Palmer-Mehta

Hay

(2006) Reader responses to the anti-gay hate crime story line in DC Comics’ Green Lantern. In: Weaver

Carter

(eds) Critical Readings: Violence and the Media. New York: Open University Press, pp. 304–318.

65.

Papke

(1999) Conventional wisdom: The courtroom trial in American popular culture. Marquette Law Review 82(3): 471–489.

66.

Penfold-Mounce

Beer

Burrows

(2011) The Wire as social science-fiction? Sociology 45(1): 152–167.

67.

Pickett

Baker

(2014) The pragmatic American: Empirical reality or methodological artifact? Criminology 52(2): 195–222.

68.

Powell

(2015) Seeking rape justice: Formal and informal responses to sexual violence through technosocial counter-publics. Theoretical Criminology 19(4): 571–588.

69.

Pratt

(2000) Emotive and ostentatious punishment: Its decline and resurgence in modern society. Punishment & Society 2(4): 417–439.

70.

Rafter

(2006) Shots in the Mirror: Crime Films and Society. 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.

71.

Rafter

(2007) Crime, film and criminology: Recent sex-crime movies. Theoretical Criminology 11(3): 403–420.

72.

Reddit Help (2016) Audience and demographics. Available at: https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205183225-Audience-and-Demographics (accessed 25 September 2016).

73.

Ricciardi

Demos

(2015) Making a Murderer. Available at: https://www.netflix.com/ca/ (accessed 15 January 2016).

74.

Salzmann

(2011) The film Law Abiding Citizen: How popular culture is poisoning people’s perceptions of pleas. Southwestern Law Review 41(1): 119–147.

75.

Schulz

(2016) Dead certainty: How “Making a Murderer” goes wrong. The New Yorker, 25 January. Available at: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/25/dead-certainty (accessed 10 April 2017).

76.

Simonetto

(2016) Expanding our methodological toolbox: The “place” of Twitter in the ethnographic endeavor. Qualitative Sociology Review 12(1): 98–112.

77.

Spitz

(2000) Heroes or villains? Moral struggles vs. ethical dilemmas: An examination of dramatic portrayals of lawyers and the legal profession in popular culture. Nova Law Review 24(2): 725–750.

78.

Surette

Chadee

Heath

. (2011) Preventive and punitive criminal justice policy support in Trinidad: The media’s role. Crime, Media, Culture 7(1): 31–48.

79.

Tonry

(2004) Thinking About Crime: Sense and Sensibility in American Penal Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

80.

Trottier

(2015) Coming to terms with social media monitoring: Uptake and early assessment. Crime, Media, Culture 11(3): 317–333.

81.

Tzanelli

Yar

O’Brien

(2005) ‘Con me if you can’: Exploring crime in the American cinematic imagination. Theoretical Criminology 9(1): 97–117.

82.

Unnever

Cullen

(2009) Empathetic identification and punitiveness: A middle-range theory of individual differences. Theoretical Criminology 13(3): 283–312.

83.

Unnever

Cullen

(2010) The social sources of Americans’ punitiveness: A test of three competing models. Criminology 48(1): 99–129.

84.

Unnever

Cochran

Cullen

. (2010) The pragmatic American: Attributions of crime and the hydraulic relation hypothesis. Justice Quarterly 27(3): 431–457.

85.

Unnever

Cullen

Fisher

(2005) Empathy and public support for capital punishment. Journal of Crime & Justice 28(1): 1–34.

86.

Van Stokkom

(2002) Moral emotions in restorative justice conferences: Managing shame, designing empathy. Theoretical Criminology 6(3): 339–360.

87.

Victor

(2016a) No ‘Making a Murderer’ pardon from Obama, White House says. New York Times, 9 January.

88.

Victor

(2016b) Release ordered for ‘murderer’ in Netflix series. New York Times, 13 August, p. 13.

89.

Wakeman

(2014) ‘No one wins. One side just loses more slowly’: The Wire and drug policy. Theoretical Criminology 18(2): 224–240.

90.

Walby

Piché

(2011) The polysemy of punishment memorialization: Dark tourism and Ontario’s penal history museums. Punishment & Society 13(4): 451–472.

91.

Warner

Davis

(2012) Using jurors to explore public attitudes to sentencing. British Journal of Criminology 52(1): 93–112.

92.

Weaver

Carter

(2006) Media violence research in the twenty-first century: A critical intervention. In: Weaver

Carter

(eds) Critical Readings: Violence and the Media. New York: Open University Press, pp. 1–26.

93.

Welsh

Fleming

Dowler

(2011) Constructing crime and justice on film: Meaning and message in cinema. Contemporary Justice Review 14(4): 457–476.

94.

Wozniak

(2016) Public opinion and the politics of criminal justice policy making: Reasons for optimism, pessimism, and uncertainty. Criminology & Public Policy 15(1): 179–186.