All my life, the debate has been going on, as to whether fictional crime, whether in books, on TV, films or the stage increases the amount of crimes committed in real life, or accelerates the level of viciousness.
Some people hold that it does (both amongst the general public, and amongst those who work in the police, prision service and amongst lawyers, doctors etc.)
Others hold that fictional crime provides a safety valve of some sort. Much the same sort of discussion has been, and still is, carried on regarding ponography.
As far as I know, no final judgement on the subject has been reached.
Personally, I find it distressing that whereas classic writers of crime fiction, such as Agatha Christie and Dorothy L. Sayers made it clear that murder was wrong, a good many modern writers (not all, though) seem more interested in the criminal's motivation than in anyone solving the crime, and never seem to make any clear moral judgement, or lead the reader to do so.
If once we accept that something we know to be wrong, such as murder or child abuse, is an acceptable topic for entertainment, are we not to a certain extent condoning it?
Obviously, both the legal and medical professions research and publish works on crimes. This is a completely different matter, and serious plays or films can be a means to alerting the general public to very distressing sides of human behaviour that have far-reaching consequences for everyone involved, but crime, purely and simply as entertainment, has always struck me as morally dubious.