Back to the topic at hand, in the past violent films such as 'Natural Born Killers' and 'Taxi Driver,' have been accused of promoting and encouraging violence. I am aware that there have been cases of 'copy cat killings' taken from the films, but can we place the blame entirely on these films as the sole cause for those murders? As we delve into the 21st Century, Video Games have become the latest scapegoat for the causes of violent crimes. With the tragic events that took place in Connecticut, last December (2012), Video Games and violence has yet again been put in the spot light. The argument put forward was that by playing the games Call of Duty and Mass Effect, the gunman was inspired by the violence in these games to go out and commit such a horrible crime. The media had a field day on this fact and were saying without the existence of violent video games, none of this would ever have happened. This argument is ridiculous of course, since even before video games and movies, violent crimes were being committed. Take for example Jack the Ripper and the Whitechapel Murders.
In 1888, six women were killed and mutilated within the Whitechapel district of East London (there have been theories that the actual number may be far greater, however the general consensus is that the mystery man Jack the Ripper was only accountable for these six). Back to the topic of Video Games causing violence, and how Jack the Ripper is related to my point, in 1888 they didn't have Video Games or Movies, they had newspapers and theater, yet there was still a man who could commit such horrific crimes and never get caught. The newspapers of the time would have been reporting on other acts of violence such as the latter end of the Zulu civil wars, and theaters would be putting on plays and musicals which incorporated violence, but are either of these mediums scrutinized today? The simple answer is no, because it seems ridiculous to blame a play at the theater for inspiring the Ripper murders. As for newspapers, and the daily flow of violent acts that are reported on nowadays, they never seem to be blamed because there is other media for them to scapegoat, surely the newspapers should take some of the blame if it's ok for video games and movies to be blamed for violence?
Reading an article by Kotaku (http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/01/75-of-parents-think-violent-video-games-contribute-to-actual-violence/) earlier today, shows that possibly due to media spreading the fear that video games are the devil and by playing them your children are slowly being corrupted. However most of these violent video games are rated at 18, so for kids to get hold of them it would require their parents or older family members to purchase it for them. This is where parents would claim ignorance to not knowing how violent the game was but in the case of Call of Duty, the lobbies of which are usually always flooded with kids, it is the parents fault for them playing it. The box art usually depicts a man carrying a gun, on the back it describes the game as involving warfare, and finally the big ratings companies rate the game at 18, all pointing to the fact that this game deals with adult subjects. Therefore instead of blaming the game for promoting violence to children is it not the parents who should be held accountable for it? Even if the child got a hold of it some other way the likely hood is they'll be playing the game in their parents house, so it is up to the parents to prevent them from playing games they deem too violent. If you were to buy your child an adult movie from the local adult shop, you'd be classed as an irresponsible parent, and would be entirely to blame for that, as unlikely as that situation is, the point still stands, adult movies are rated 18 as are most violent games, parents should be held accountable to what they expose their children to rather than seek to place the blame on someone else.
In the spirit of trying to keep this post a reasonable length, there is just a few more points I would like to touch on. This first thing is related to the last paragraph on parent responsibility and ratings systems. In the United States of America, President Obama outlined a $10 million study into the violent media (which includes Video games). On top of this US congress has outlined a violent video game legislation entitled the 'Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act.' It is described fully here: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/17/violent-games-legislation-introduced-to-us-congress, but is basically making the ESRB rating system part of the law similar to it being illegal for a shop in the UK to sell a game to someone under the age of the rating. We must also take into account the mental state of the person committing the crime, since a lot of the time these people are mentally unstable and don't think the same as the average citizen. Going back to the subject of Connecticut, the US gun laws and the ease of access he had to the weapons he used can be blamed, since without the tools of the crime, he may never have been able to commit the crime. On a final note, Kotaku says that 'there is absolutely zero evidence, according to leading researchers in this field, that links violent video games to violent crime in any way.'
In 1888, six women were killed and mutilated within the Whitechapel district of East London (there have been theories that the actual number may be far greater, however the general consensus is that the mystery man Jack the Ripper was only accountable for these six). Back to the topic of Video Games causing violence, and how Jack the Ripper is related to my point, in 1888 they didn't have Video Games or Movies, they had newspapers and theater, yet there was still a man who could commit such horrific crimes and never get caught. The newspapers of the time would have been reporting on other acts of violence such as the latter end of the Zulu civil wars, and theaters would be putting on plays and musicals which incorporated violence, but are either of these mediums scrutinized today? The simple answer is no, because it seems ridiculous to blame a play at the theater for inspiring the Ripper murders. As for newspapers, and the daily flow of violent acts that are reported on nowadays, they never seem to be blamed because there is other media for them to scapegoat, surely the newspapers should take some of the blame if it's ok for video games and movies to be blamed for violence?
Reading an article by Kotaku (http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/01/75-of-parents-think-violent-video-games-contribute-to-actual-violence/) earlier today, shows that possibly due to media spreading the fear that video games are the devil and by playing them your children are slowly being corrupted. However most of these violent video games are rated at 18, so for kids to get hold of them it would require their parents or older family members to purchase it for them. This is where parents would claim ignorance to not knowing how violent the game was but in the case of Call of Duty, the lobbies of which are usually always flooded with kids, it is the parents fault for them playing it. The box art usually depicts a man carrying a gun, on the back it describes the game as involving warfare, and finally the big ratings companies rate the game at 18, all pointing to the fact that this game deals with adult subjects. Therefore instead of blaming the game for promoting violence to children is it not the parents who should be held accountable for it? Even if the child got a hold of it some other way the likely hood is they'll be playing the game in their parents house, so it is up to the parents to prevent them from playing games they deem too violent. If you were to buy your child an adult movie from the local adult shop, you'd be classed as an irresponsible parent, and would be entirely to blame for that, as unlikely as that situation is, the point still stands, adult movies are rated 18 as are most violent games, parents should be held accountable to what they expose their children to rather than seek to place the blame on someone else.
In the spirit of trying to keep this post a reasonable length, there is just a few more points I would like to touch on. This first thing is related to the last paragraph on parent responsibility and ratings systems. In the United States of America, President Obama outlined a $10 million study into the violent media (which includes Video games). On top of this US congress has outlined a violent video game legislation entitled the 'Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act.' It is described fully here: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/17/violent-games-legislation-introduced-to-us-congress, but is basically making the ESRB rating system part of the law similar to it being illegal for a shop in the UK to sell a game to someone under the age of the rating. We must also take into account the mental state of the person committing the crime, since a lot of the time these people are mentally unstable and don't think the same as the average citizen. Going back to the subject of Connecticut, the US gun laws and the ease of access he had to the weapons he used can be blamed, since without the tools of the crime, he may never have been able to commit the crime. On a final note, Kotaku says that 'there is absolutely zero evidence, according to leading researchers in this field, that links violent video games to violent crime in any way.'
No comments:
Post a Comment