The Menendez Brothers: Crime, Trauma, and Evolving Perspectives on Abuse and Justice
The trial of Lyle and Erik Menendez captivated the nation in the early 1990s and has returned to the top of the news cycle over the last several months. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office (LADA) has examined new evidence and recommended the resentencing of the Menendez brothers. Relatives and advocates are calling for their release. Just last week, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge delayed their long-anticipated hearing to Jan. 30, 2025.
The brothers brutally murdered their parents, José and Kitty Menendez, in 1989, and their case remains one of the most hotly debated criminal cases in modern American history. Books, movies, documentaries, and a recent semi-fictionalized docuseries have all kept it relatively fresh in our minds. Sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, Lyle and Erik have now spent 35 years behind bars. Their case is both a cautionary tale of unthinkable violence and a window into societal issues that were deeply misunderstood at the time—particularly the stigma around male victims of sexual abuse and the under-reporting of incest, along with public perception of such issues.
After sitting in pre-trial detention for three years, split juries resulted in mistrials for both brothers. LADA’s embarrassment over losing the O.J. Simpson case led to a second Menendez trial beginning in 1995—one that precluded almost all mentions of the years of alleged sexual abuse and trauma faced by the defendants. Prosecutors and the judge would not allow what they referred to as “the abuse excuse” to be introduced as a mitigating factor.
One of the most significant aspects of the Menendez brothers’ defense was their testimony about sexual abuse. Long-standing myths surround sexual assault and abuse against male victims, the most harmful of which is that it is impossible for such crimes to be committed against a male. At the time of the trial, sexual abuse against boys was “common, underreported, underrecognized, and undertreated.” The stigma is rooted in traditional gender norms that view men as strong, stoic, and impervious to victimhood. As a result, male survivors are less likely to disclose their abuse.
Historically, sexual violence focused almost exclusively on rape, conceptualized as “carnal knowledge of a woman, not one’s wife, by force and against her will.” Under this definition, what Lyle and Erik endured would not have been considered rape. But the definition of sexual violence has expanded in the decades following the brothers’ conviction thanks to advances in scientific knowledge and increased awareness. According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, sexual violence occurs “[when] someone forces or manipulates someone else into unwanted sexual activity without their consent.” Had this definition been applied at the time of trial—and if the judge had allowed evidence of the abuse to be considered by a jury—the outcome may have been different.
Shrouded in secrecy and shame, incest remains one of the most under-reported crimes. Victims of incest are less likely to disclose their abuse than those abused by non-family members. This silence is often due to fear of disrupting the family dynamic, loyalty to the abuser, or fear of others not believing them. The Menendez brothers’ allegations fit this pattern. They described a household that normalized abuse and punished dissent. José, a powerful entertainment executive, allegedly used his authority to control and silence his sons. Meanwhile, Kitty was accused of turning a blind eye to the abuse. This dynamic of power, secrecy, and fear is common in incestuous households, making it difficult for survivors to seek help.
That the brothers killed their parents was never a source of debate. What divided the nation (and remains a source of contention) is whether they committed the murders for financial gain or as a desperate act of self-defense to prevent their parents from killing them for disclosing the abuse.
If the Menendez trial took place today, public and legal perceptions might be drastically different. There has been a growing awareness of male sexual abuse and its psychological impact over the past 30-plus years. While today’s society might be more empathetic toward the brothers’ claims of abuse, this does not absolve them of responsibility for their crimes. Killing their parents was an extreme and unjustifiable act. However, it raises important questions about the intersection of trauma and criminal behavior and whether life without parole was the appropriate punishment.
Incarcerated for more than three decades, the Menendez brothers have been held accountable for their crimes. They have expressed remorse and have lived as model prisoners, contributing positively to the prison community. Both men are now in their 50s, an age at which recidivism rates drop significantly, particularly for those whose crimes were rooted in specific, non-recurring circumstances. The criminogenic factors that led to their actions—the abusive environment and their youth—are no longer present. Lyle and Erik are not the type of offenders who typically pose an ongoing risk to public safety.
The Menendez brothers’ case remains a polarizing topic, but it is also a powerful lens through which to examine societal attitudes toward abuse, trauma, and accountability. While their crimes were heinous, their allegations of sexual abuse and incest highlight issues that society still has not fully addressed. As public awareness continues to grow, cases like theirs remind us how important it is to listen to victims and to understand the complex interplay between trauma and behavior. At the same time, they underscore the need for accountability and justice balanced with compassion and recognition of the human capacity for change.