"A US teenager killed his mother and wounded his father in revenge after they took away his violent computer game, a judge has ruled.Since we have recently been looking at legal and ethical issues in interactive media, and since computer games are interactive media, this article is well worth our consideration.
"The defence team for Daniel Petric, 17, had argued his addiction to the Halo 3 game, in which players shoot invading aliens, had made him insane.
"But the judge rejected this, saying he had planned revenge for weeks."
(BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7826663.stm)
Please consider the following questions and give your answers in your own blogs:
- If Halo 3 did have a part to play in making this young man more capable of killing for real, what acts of law, or codes of ethics, might the publisher be in breach of?
- What is the value of game age rating systems?
- Do computer game producers have an obligation to tune down violence?
- How violent is too violent?
- Where would you draw the line?
- Do you think there is a line or do you think anything should be allowed in computer games? - Could long exposure to computer game violence make someone become more able to commit violence for real?
- How might this case impact the interactive media industry?
Some interesting reading on the issues:
- "Review of Research on the Impact of Violent Computer Games on Young People"
(Department for Culture, Media and Sport, UK Government, 2005 - Click to read >) - "Violent Video Games: The Newest Media Violence Hazard"
(Iowa State University, Click to read >) - "Violent Video Games Linked to Child Aggression"
(CNN, 2009, Click to read >)
I have my own thoughts and opinions - an opinion is what this is, I am not preaching. I don't know for sure what part violent computer games play in what the 17 year old American did to his parents, but from a purely pragmatic viewpoint it is my opinion that the human mind can become accustomed to most things it once found shocking, if exposed to those things often enough. I think that applies to soldiers in combat, doctors in a hospital casualty department, and people playing video games equally. Over time we become used to the scenes before us and they shock us less. To look at it another way, we become desensitised, we are more able to view those things and experience those things without thinking anything of it, without questioning the rightness or wrongness of what we are experiencing, we are simply able to get on with the job. In some situations (as in the doctor or the soldier) this may be a necessary coping strategy, though stressful nonetheless. But I do wonder if the general public really need desensitising in this way. We should find violence shocking. I am concerned that once desensitised we care less when it happens to others, we care less when we are violent towards others, we fail to find it shocking, our ability to empathise diminishes, somehow we are less innocent than we used to be, and part of the child in us dies. I find that a great pity. You may disagree, that is your perogative, just give me a decent case for your viewpoint. Food for thought. Where does society go next?
12 comments:
On the topic of being desensitised towards violent content in the media from long exposure to it, I'd like to point out that there are a lot of grizzly jobs out there that the government needs to fill; although this raises all kinds of questions, the fact of the matter is that being desensitised to witnessing gore in some ways has it's advantage in many positions.
Also, I think the biggest failure in these situations is not with the media industry themselves or the governing bodies appointed to censoring them but with the people that allow unstable minds to use content which is dangerous to them; People such as parents etc. When considering the facts and figures* the number of cases of video games supposedly being the main cause for acts such as this is minute. If you read under what the general media covers in their articles into the true lives of these people you will almost certainly come to realise that these people have factors acting against them to provoke this kind of behaviour- almost all of the famous cases I can think of have some kind of extreme parental or social dysfunction involved which the media will simply forget to mention.
My stance on this personally is that any creative media is an art form and nobody should have the right to disallow people from expressing their creations. It is up to the public to decide if they wish to view or purchase this media or allow the people which they guard to consume it. If people had no use for this kind of media, games such as this probably won't be produced for cost reasons anyway. Then, you also have to think about why people buy these types of games; quite a few studies support the opposite of what the mass media in general suggest and have shown that people play violent video games as a method of stress relief. We may never know the true answer as to why video games are blamed for any of this; but my two cents say that it is all just an other moral panic to add to the hundreds of other hyped or materialised "issues" plaguing the media over the past few decades.
*(I may have these from a previous essay on the subject if you want me to find them)
[end rant]
Thanks James, interesting comments. As I researched around the issue one of the key findings of the DCMS (UK Govt.) report was that insufficient research has been done that is video game specific.
I suppose it is relatively easy to draw correlations, but much harder to draw causal links. The research simply needs doing.
I take your point that unstable minds may be vulnerable and that many of the acts of violence blamed on video games may have other factors behind them too. However, does this mean video game publishers are off the hook? Is being merely a contributing factor somehow less serious than being the only factor? Which straw broke the camel's back? I guess it depends on the publisher's view of where their responsibility ends. But we can't expect any publisher to be unbiased in that view, since profit is a significant motive for existence.
Who then is responsible? Which of those customers who bought the game is unstable and will act on it after enough exposure has "broken the camels back"? Do we censor the many because of the few? Or do we risk the few for the entertainment of the many? I would say Freedom is a good cause in which to risk a few, even many, but is entertainment a good cause?
Where should the line be drawn?
James, I note that I was still editing my original post while you made your comment. Apologies for this. I hope this has not affected how you would have responded. Not intentional.
"I take your point that unstable minds may be vulnerable and that many of the acts of violence blamed on video games may have other factors behind them too. However, does this mean video game publishers are off the hook?" This is a very good point, but I still feel that the cases documented surrounding violence being provoked by violent video games are so few and twisted so far by the time they filter through to us via the news press that the innocent consumers shouldn't loose out on the products they expect because of a moral panic with no solid un-bias facts as of yet. It seems both unfair to the consumers and even more so the industry for having to censor themselves for no proven reason.
Until there is substantial evidence on either side to prove or disprove a genuine link between violent interactive entertainment and actual violence I will leave the blame with the people distributing the wares into the wrong hands rather than those creating it.
Generally, a new ratings system may help to some degree when it comes to the issue of people being brought inappropriate games from their parents- but that will by no means stop the content filtering through regardless; much like the cigarette problem in the UK.
If there's a demand from the people that want it bad enough, they'll find a supply route, this holds true to almost all age or law restricted consumables- media or otherwise.
Different people have a vast array of different opinions on what is safe for their children, perhaps a simple non-profit organisation could be founded to help the genuinely unaware guardians with unique urls for each game presented on game cases could become mandatory. Even then, I very much doubt that such a system will be used by those who need it the most.
I think this debate will probably go on forever; nobody has the answers.
I read your edits now, I agree with your points on desensitising- "Where does society go next?" is a very very worrying question to ask today. Ask it less than 100 years ago however, and the answer will probably be a lot more optimistic. Perhaps the issue is that big budget and mainstream media such as movies and games should not glorify or play down violence in the way that it mostly does today.
The most disturbing example I can think of is in the James Bond movies as one text to mention- Count how many times you see blood during those movies. Barely ever. You see perhaps 100s of people die in mainstream action movies, but not a drop of blood, no people screaming in agony for long periods of time, they just die emotionlessly. Seeing the deaths shown in this way is damaging, but shown like this to protect people. This is no doubt a very backwards system.
The reason why movies do this is simple: to have lower ratings so-as to reach a wider audience. This is misteaching the effects of violence to people at a very early age deliberately and can give them a very dangerous view on life if not educated otherwise from an other source. We are talking about ending a real human being's life being ended permanently on screen, not just some random extra falling over quickly with no emotion pain or after effects while the hero speeds away.
The law should probably be a lot different; blood and pain /should/ be shown for violence rated for children and not be a factor that can prevent movies getting a wider audience- the content can still be entertaining to watch for the same reasons but at the same time also more true to life. I don't know about the people reading this, but I would much rather see a war movie that actually feels like war. I would much rather see an action movie that really is life or death for the people involved in these fights.
Mainstream media is getting so absurd with how it portrays reality, it is getting a bit crazy. I am all for this, on the condition that society outside of the big screen can understand that this is fiction and treat it as such. This also brings me onto the question of why basic first aid isn't taught in schools, it could help a lot with these kinds of issues as well as the more obvious implications of such a subject. Without more real-world experience people certainly do run the risk of having a bent perception of the things around them.
Interesting, I agree that the media has been dumbed down a lot over the years and violence, people going missing is now considered as an everyday thing in today’s news. But the news and the press have more power than what we might be ware of. Constant showing of this time we do get use to. It kind of the hypethmic needle theory. With what ever being said is taken as the norm and no questions asked.
Being Influenced by the media?
Advert would be a prime example on how powerful the media is, and just by advertising your programme during primetime can increase sales.
I would say that it is only a computer game and there is line between reality and the game world except for those who play second life who some could say have no real life…! But again when you have been solidly playing a game for a while and you come of shaking with adrenaline I think you can say it has had an effect on you. But even then you kind of know that you was playing as someone’s else and it was a game. You could say something like this with a film but I would say you get more involved with a game as you are controlling the action and not just watching it.
I think it comes down to the individual, there mind frame, history etc. I would think thousands of people play computer games with out getting the urge to kill there own family.
When I play wwe Smackdown vs. Raw I do feel pumped up and like a wrestler though that’s more wishful thinking. But I would never take it further than actually start hitting people with steel chairs. What happens in the game stays in the game. I have a controller in hand when on a game in real live I do not. I might have a laugh walking round the house announcing myself as wwe champion but I don’t go outside saying I am wwe champion that would be silly and it is just for laugh.
This game was critised a lot last year with an incident of somebody injuring somebody claiming it was done offer the influence of the game. But would simply question the whole WWE show and brand as promoting violence to a young audience due to its TV show.
Another possible take you could take is: is gaming in the same league as smoking, alcohol and gambling in terms of addictiveness? To some extent it would this would be true in some cases. Again it comes down to the user how it affects an individual. You could start saying now that schools should have classes on mental discipline and knowing the difference between the two worlds of fact and fiction. If there were no games or films just books I would say we would still be having this conversation.
The impact it would have on a gaming or film company I think would not be as bad as you think. Depending on the reputation. You have to think the game Halo has sold lots of copies and for one person who we know about who has “been” influenced and got addicted by it, I can not affecting sales. I think they will take note, but I would say they are not to blame, for the mind frame of one person.
At the end of the day and as cold as this may seem, there has been loads of cases like this, i think the media does use games and films to some extent as an escape goat. Most people only associate games with children and try and take the higher ground over it while not understanding the wide audience they have.
This case I think will come down to the mind frame of the person.
What I have said may not make sense i=as I write a bit here and a bit there and see where it goes. Some of the stuff I have wrote are just ways you could look at things and may not be my own views. I am just throwing it out there in the mix.
But if you placed one of those dolls that look cone like, that you hit down and then comes back up. You placed in a room with a children. Most of the time the children will hit the doll. Does that make the child violent? Or they doing the only think you can do with that doll?
How emotionally involved do we get? As the director of game or film i would imagine you want the audience to get emotionaly invovled. You want them to share the joy, happiness etc of a chracter.
But what happens in game is being able to create your own custom characters. I think when you do this no matter what game it is, that custom charcter becomes an extension of the user. You get even more envolved with the game.
If you watch a film or play a game about an already given character you simply play as them. They already have there own personnlaity etc. But with custom made you put your peronallty into it. Make it look like you. I do not know if you couyld do this in Halo. But you get more of an attachment. This was just a thory i thought of, don't know if it is a proper one but haveing that extra involvment and extension of you in the game could be a bad thing. It could fuel the addiction even more as you are drawn deeper into the game, it becomes personal. if it is a viloent game you personality fomr the game you may be tranfered to reality. If it is a game like animal crossing it could have an opppsite effect. This thery again depends on mind frame of the person and then content, story and rating of the game are all added factors.
While game companies could think this custom character idea is a good a way to place the player into the game it could come with the greater cost.
Just throwing this in the mix as well.
Role play is certainly what gaming is for a huge number of people and what the games are designed to be (depending on the genre, of course) -- simply an engaging escape from reality for most texts; but the issue with the people that are allegedly twisted by gaming is perhaps that they do not understand the line between role play and inheriting the characteristics of their protagonist outside of the game. This is a pretty serious thing, and surly not just the games experience is the only factor acting on their behaviour. I'm not a psychiatrist so this could be totally wrong. Like I said earlier; there just isn't enough evidence available to make educated arguments, just speculation. =(
http://uk.gizmodo.com/2009/01/14/halo_3_killer_found_guilty.htm
Halo 3 Killer Found Guilty- January 14, 2009 (uk.gizmodo.com)
As with many of these cases that I've studied, a gun owned by the parents was accessible to the criminal. This normally shocks me more than the concept of violent media effecting the mind of the criminal to provoke an attack.
Games don't kill people, guns do.♪
A Slashdot user (kisak) asks: "Would this murder have happened if it would have been harder for the kid the get hold of a gun?" here: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09%2F01%2F14%2F0055214&from=rss
Their discussion covers a fair few points and angles to this discussion that we haven't yet.
james i found your idea about the Bond films and the unrealisticness of people dying to be true and a way of letting a younger audience see it to sell more tickets but then making violence more viwable to children who then get a false sense of what killing someone is actualy like (not that i have killed).
But then how do explain old cartoons like Tom and Jerry. This cartoon was aired 1940 to 1950 and as far as i am aware i have not heard of children back then being influenced by the violence of the cartoon. Surly if it was one thing that was to influence children it would be cartoon.
You also have to think about how Bond films have changed from the days of Sean Connery, these were very tongue in cheek compared to the new Dan Craig. i doubt lasers and secret undergroung layers and over the top gadgets in the newer incarnations.
But again i would have to say it is about the person, the individul and how they react.
Like you said it will be an argument with no end as it is so opinionated with evidence and arguments on both sides.
A good point /idea on the gun, and how accessable the gun was. We can all wonder on what if but unfornatly what is done is done.
sorry if there is any spelling mistakes or if something don't make sense.
I agree with the many of the comments that have been made especially the point about the desensitization of the public.
The point about the diluted nature of violence in films is also a valid point and is definitely a large contributing factor to the desensitization of the public.
However this is necessary because showing accurate portrayals of violence, the ratings of creative media such as film and game would suffer possibly leading to further restrictions in mediums by bodies such as the BBFC.
Take this into consideration if what people see and hear is restricted you would be to a certain degree taking away peoples freedom.
This does not mean that I agree with restricting what people see and hear.
It just means that I think that people need to recognise the difference between fantasy and reality.
Another point that I agree with is that the media uses creative mediums such as game and film as a scapegoat instead of looking for other parties that could be held accountable for the final outcome.
Post a Comment