True Crime books

[Syracusefan]

Just curious....

I hope this is the right section of the forum to post this in, but I participated in a chat yesterday with Anne Bird who wrote "Blood Brother: 33 Reasons Why I Think Scott Peterson is Guilty". I am just curious what everyone's opinion is about authors who write about high profile cases? Do you think authors deserve to write about trials for profit. Personally, I have no problem with it, but there has been a lot of author bashing going on about the Peterson trial. Catherine Crier from CourtTv - has another Peterson book coming out this week.

 

[novella]

What an interesting question.

I think public trials are fair game, after the fact of course. For one thing, the trial is a matter of public record. For another, some authors have assisted the wrongly convicted by writing about their cases and trials. And some authors have personal motivations behind what they do.

Dominick Dunne, for instance, began writing about trials and the justice system because his daughter was murdered, and the murderer (her one-time boyfriend) was released after only a couple of months. This was in CA, and some thought it was a premeditated murder. The killer copped a plea for early release.

Then Dunne started writing about how the privileged often are dealt a different, kinder form of justice, which has been his focus ever since. (He wrote about the Mendez brothers and the Kennedy cousin who killed Martha Moxley, among others.) I think he’s performing a real journalistic service in some cases. I would do the same. In fact, I have a case in my life that I plan to write about if the murderer is caught.

Naturally, there’s a flood of poorly written nonsense books surrounding most high-profile cases these days, but I know of several cases where a person wrongly convicted was given another trial or released because of an author’s work. One was in the town of Falls Village, CT, a case where a boy was charged with murdering his mother, when it was physically impossible. The late playwright Arthur Miller lobbied for his release, and a local journalist wrote a book, helping to free him.

So, I guess it depends on the quality of research and intent of the author. Crap books that just capitalize on proximity to a case aren’t worth publishing or reading, but no reason why anyone should be barred from doing it.



(BTW, I would have posted this under General Discussion, with a more specific thread title, like True Crime Writing, so that people have a clue what it's about.)

 

[Syracusefan]

BTW, I would have posted this under General Discussion, with a more specific thread title, like True Crime Writing, so that people have a clue what it's about.)

Thanks so much for the heads-up on placement...I am sure you will find my posts all over the place until I get a feel for the forum!!!

 

[novella]

Relevant to this, I think, is all the tabloid journalism and bad television produced around these events. It's sort of taken the place of a public stoning or hanging in the prurient-interest market.

I personally think a lot more goes into writing a book than into producing all of these transient media products, even if it's a quickie crap book. And, if the public will buy it, then they deserve what they get.

I did some journalism and reportage on the death penalty a while ago and there are some very good, well-researched books out there that focus on true cases. Those have value beyond sensationalist speculation.

I guess the moral questions are--

--Does media (including books) surrounding a trial unfairly prejudice the outcome? To what extent should that be controlled?

--Is it immoral to make money by taking advantage of your proximity to a case?

--Should a convicted defendant be allowed to cooperate with an author for profit? Should they be allowed to make any money at all on their case? For instance, what if a convicted murderer wrote a "fictional" account of his crimes?

 

[Cathy C]

--Does media (including books) surrounding a trial unfairly prejudice the outcome? To what extent should that be controlled? Well, in the case of the Peterson trial, the jury was sequestered, so no -- it probably didn't unfairly prejudice. But in a lot of cases, I believe that's true. But we humans are a decidedly bloodthirsty lot. It's just a modern version of the gladiator games.

--Is it immoral to make money by taking advantage of your proximity to a case? Hmm. Good question. Looking from the outside, I'd say yes. But if it were MY brother (if I had one) who was on trial, and I truly believed he'd done it, I might think differently. But I like to believe (however moralistic it is) that I would donate the money from royalties for a group that will help prevent it in the future. But if the mortgage needed to be paid... I don't really know.


--Should a convicted defendant be allowed to cooperate with an author for profit? Should they be allowed to make any money at all on their case? For instance, what if a convicted murderer wrote a "fictional" account of his crimes? I'm pretty sure this is illegal in most states. I don't think a defendant is ALLOWED to profit from his crime. But for fiction? I guess it would depend on whether the crime was similar to that which he was in prison for. Now, that leads to a further question -- what if a person is ACQUITTED? Let's say (still barely in the realm of possibility) that the strange Mr. Jackson is acquitted. He's majorly in debt and can't even pay his attorneys. Should he be allowed to write about it? I'm pretty certain that California is one of the "can't profit" states. Should he be allowed to profit from the hoopla if he's adjudged innocent?

 

[novella]

.



--Should a convicted defendant be allowed to cooperate with an author for profit? Should they be allowed to make any money at all on their case? For instance, what if a convicted murderer wrote a "fictional" account of his crimes?

I'm pretty sure this is illegal in most states. I don't think a defendant is ALLOWED to profit from his crime. But for fiction? I guess it would depend on whether the crime was similar to that which he was in prison for. Now, that leads to a further question -- what if a person is ACQUITTED? Let's say (still barely in the realm of possibility) that the strange Mr. Jackson is acquitted. He's majorly in debt and can't even pay his attorneys. Should he be allowed to write about it? I'm pretty certain that California is one of the "can't profit" states. Should he be allowed to profit from the hoopla if he's adjudged innocent?

Interestingly, the so-called "Son of Sam" laws passed in the 70s that barred convicts profiting from books and movies have been struck down several times. The latest view is that such laws infringe 1st Amendment rights, and that any profits can be claimed by the victim through a civil suit. That's pretty much the state of play right now. In California the law was challenged and struck down. There's a case now as to whether Peterson's profits must be held in trust in case the victim's family wins a civil suit. It's a rather convoluted solution.

In the case of fiction, the rules are much hazier. They become hazier still if the book is actually ghostwritten, based on interviews, and the perp is payed a flat fee.

I just thought of a weird auxilliary questions:

Should combat soldiers be allowed to profit from their accounts of war atrocities they witness? For instance, what if the soldiers at Abu Ghraib were paid money to collaborate on a book?