Criminal Justice in the Age of Sharing

Over the years I’ve been a lawyer, much has changed, affecting the practice of law. Social media, YouTube, and the rise of true crime shows have had a profound impact on the criminal justice system, influencing how crimes are investigated, prosecuted, and perceived by the public. These platforms have transformed not only the accessibility of information but also the dynamics between justice, media, and public opinion. While they have promoted awareness and transparency, they have blurred the line between factual reporting and entertainment, often complicating legal processes and public understanding, often leading to inaccurate public perception.

Anyone with a phone can share updates, videos, or theories about ongoing investigations. This free access had led to greater scrutiny of police practices, judicial procedures, and sentencing outcomes. Similarly, citizen journalism and videos have played roles in holding law enforcement accountable, as seen in high-profile cases where video footage obtained by bystanders was crucial to obtaining justice.

However, this digital transparency can come with significant drawbacks. Public commentary and speculation can interfere with the integrity of investigations and trials. Potential jurors may be exposed to biased, incomplete or inaccurate information online, making it more difficult to ensure impartiality. The phenomenon of “trial by social media” allows the public to form judgments long before evidence is presented in court, potentially prejudicing outcomes. Additionally, misinformation spreads quickly online; amateur investigators sometimes wrongly name suspects, leading to defamation, harassment and even vigilante behavior where innocent people are misidentified by online users. This gives rise to vigilante behavior which is illegal, in which individuals or groups lacking formal legal authority employ social media to publicly shame, dox or bait those they suspect of wrongdoing. Perpetrators of vigilante justice often view themselves as heroes or as morally superior but in fact often their actions often have adverse impact on the prosecution of cases. Acts of perceived justice by vigilantes can be viewed as crimes themselves. Another impact felt in our office and reported by other agencies is the 100% increase in IPRA requests.

YouTube and true crime shows have further shaped criminal justice through dramatization. Crime shows and true crime media are immensely popular. Researchers from Edison Research, Pew Research and others have found that 85% of the U.S. Population over the age of 13 consume true crime in the form of podcasts, television, and YouTube channel programs. The popularization of crime shows has led to a greater demand for content. Consequently, the use IPRA laws are stretching beyond their original intent. IPRA is one of the core Sunshine laws, the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) enables access to public records of governmental entities in New Mexico. As outlined by the NMDOJ, “IPRA enables access to public records of governmental entities in New Mexico recognizing that the public is entitled to information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of public officers and employee’s.” (NMDOJ) This transparency is valuable, but what is happening in large measure are requests from television shows, production companies and vloggers with crime shows increasing 100% requesting entire case files, to construct crime shows, for profit, and there is no basis in the IPRA law to protect against this. Recently two D.A. staff members have spent two months reviewing and redacting a high-profile case requested by a production company with offices in Los Angeles and London for a documentary in production. I’ve no objection to making what may end up being and insightful documentary, but the fact that the staff of a state agency worked full time for two months with their salaries paid by the tax payers of New Mexico, to provide material for the for  a for-profit company, is not what IPRA was intended for. This is just one example of those we see weekly.

Often these shows highlight flaws in policing or prosecution. These productions can promote critical discussion about wrongful convictions and the fallibility of forensic evidence, leading to policy reform or retrials. They may also make complex legal topics more understandable to the public, increasing interest in justice and law. However, their entertainment driven framing can lead to oversimplification or sensationalism which distorts public perception of the legal process. Viewers may come to see justice as a story of heroes and villains rather than a nuanced system of laws and evidence.

True crime’s popularity has also sparked debates about victim exploitation and desensitization to violence. Families of victims sometimes object to the retelling of traumatic events for entertainment value. Meanwhile, platforms that commercialize crime stories through ads, merchandise or commentary raise deeper questions about empathy, consent, and profit within the context of criminal justice.

Social media, YouTube, and true crime shows have created a complex ecosystem around the criminal justice system. They empower citizens to engage and question authority but also risk spreading misinformation and sensationalism. The challenge moving forward is to balance public involvement and transparency with fairness, accuracy, and respect for due process.