A new true-crime docuseries premiered on Hulu this August, focusing on a case that began at Grand Valley State University. The show’s release has led many to consider the connections between media and real-life crime.
“Stalking Samantha: 13 Years of Terror” recounts the story of Samantha Stites, who initially encountered Christopher Thomas at a Christian group in 2011 while both were attending the University. Thomas stalked her for over a decade before kidnapping her in 2022 and locking her in a soundproof bunker built into a storage unit. Stites escaped after 14 hours of criminal sexual conduct and torture, immediately notifying authorities.
Thomas was sentenced in 2024 to 40-60 years in prison for kidnapping, torture and aggravated stalking after dropping criminal sexual conduct charges on a plea deal. The new docuseries has brought the case back into national attention and reignited conversations about how crime is depicted in media. In the series, it is revealed that Thomas’ bunker was inspired by the Netflix series “You,” which follows an obsessive serial killer who falls in love with various women.
Thomas is far from the only person to be inspired by fictional crime media. The 1981 attempted assassination of former President Ronald Reagan was inspired by “Taxi Driver,” and a string of gruesome murders in the 1990s were said to have been inspired by the slasher film “Scream.” The production and consumption of both true and fictional crime media have been debated for many years. The genre can potentially inspire crime, create distrust and cause emotional harm to those previously impacted. With a rising interest in true-crime media and a disturbing case so close to home, there’s questioning how to ethically tell such stories.
Philosophy Department Chair Andrew Spear discussed some of the factors that should be considered before releasing this type of content. He believes true-crime media should be handled extremely delicately to respect victims and families represented in a story. He explained that producers should seek permission and get informed consent for all those who could be impacted, especially if creative liberties will be applied in storytelling.
“I think that in the creation process, some kind of permission of informed consent is important” Spear said. “Or there (should) be an understanding of when something like libel law might apply, and ethically justifiably so.”
Another factor to be considered is the difference between art and propaganda. Spear noted the difference between art that is meant to promote understanding and content meant to insight violence. He also mentioned a third type of work to be produced under that genre: sensationalist content. He acknowledged that both true and fictional crime-media can have value, but content that focuses on sales and cashing in on trends does not have value, instead creating harm.
“(When) releasing this (content) with no particular artistic point or value into a world that is already saturated with that messaging, are you helping or hurting?” Spear asked. “What is the point of releasing it into a culture where we know there’s already a proneness to do these kinds of things?”
There may be further ethical questions that arise when considering what level of responsibility creators hold in inspiring criminal conduct. Jeffery Byrnes, associate professor of philosophy, considered this.
“If creators make media with a broader intent to harm or vilify specific groups then we might consider those creators, at least in part, responsible for actions that follow,” Byrnes said. “Such judgments about individual responsibility are incredibly difficult, particularly when determining a creator’s intentions. Questions of holding a creator legally accountable are even more complicated.”
Byrnes explained that an artist who creates a work of art meant to shine light on an issue — whether image, novel or podcast — as an object for consideration and contemplation can’t reasonably be held responsible for how an individual audience member reacts.
“A work of art may be ethically troubling to us because of the conditions in which it was produced, the values it promotes, the aims it pursues or the consequences it brings about, but not merely because of its subject matter,” Byrnes said. “Just because we identify one (or more) of the above ethical concerns in a work of art doesn’t mean the work should be censored or not produced.”
