Video Games Share Blame in Florida Murder Case

EH writes "Yet another article making the case that video games force young children to ruthlessly bludgeon people to death. Or at least a South Florida lawyer thinks so. 'Whatever happened [in JoLynn's death], it was not murder,' Thompson wrote in a news release. 'The American video industry must share the blame.' Articles like this make me so angry." I'm really getting sick of video games being used as the scapegoat for the evils of society. It's not like Nintendo is blamed everytime an Italian becomes a plumber.

Comments

C'est~la~vie

[Masami Eiri]

Just have to deal with it. There's plenty of idiots out there that can't accept that violence is part of human nature, even more so in emotional times, and as such, blame it on media.

Before games, it was music, before that movies, before that certian books.

Of course, its also human nature to "pass the buck" or so it seems.

People can't be crazy no more huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

It could never be a possibility that sickos seek out violent games to play because they *gasp* enjoy violence?[/sarcasm]

Violent video games don't kill people...

[psyco484]

People kill people. When is this going to get through to society at large. There are messed up people out there that can under no circumstances function normally or reason properly. Some people have skewed psychological problems. This doesn't make it right, but perhaps if the mother had paid some more attention to her son, she would have picked up on these problems. This is a classic case of bad parenting and the parent searching for someone else to place the blame on. I have no doubt in my mind that this poor girl's life could have been saved if this child was on the proper medication or under the right psychiatric care. Some people just can not function in society, this is why there are places for people like this. I'd like to see someone tell me that I'm X times more likely to commit a crime because I played Doom when I was young.

1-part legal system, 1-part publicity

[Slowping]

In terms of the workings of the legal system, I think that assigning blame to other things is simply the way things work. I am as mad as the next guy that video games is targetted, but the law requires lawyers to defend to their maximum legal ability; and it is the prosecutors' job to make sure there is no doubt in the guilt of the accused. Better this necessary evil, than holding people with no trial..... oh... wait...

Don't blame lawyers... they just use and interpret the law. Contact your lawmakers. They're the ones that make them. And since it's basically impossible to destroy all lawyers once and for all (like ridding humanity of violence), it's better to contact your lawmakers and get things done.

Having said that, though, this defense attorney, a "self-styled expert on the influence of violent video games on youths", sounds like he's using this case for his own self-righteous publicity.

Idiocy

[Rysc]

I find it much more likely that Football will make players aggresive than video games. In one you dress up in armor and run at people with the intent to stop them. You can't say that a tackle isn't aggressive.

The other involes you staring intently at a screen and jabbing your fingers up and down. Maybe it's intense, but more like a roller coaster then armed combat... which is what football is designed to immitate.

Down with football! This devils-game is forcing our children to kill!

What happened to assuming responsability?

[c.r.o.c.o]

I'm not that old, and yet I believe I should take responsability for my actions. I cannot stand the way the American society works in this respect.

"It's not my fault I have lung cancer, the tabacco companies should have told me smoking is harmfull"

"It's not my fault I'm a drug addict, the dealer gave me crack for free and didn't tell me it's addictive"

"It's not my fault I killed this person, I saw it all in Doom, I swear!"

And the examples could go on ad infinitum. The fault always lies with someone else. In the worst case, I'm partly to blame, a minute part, and should not be punished for it. This sort of behaviour has deep implications on out lives and freedoms. On one side we have the government and big corporations trying to impose more and more severe limitations on everything we do (think DMCA, Patriot Act, etc) just because they can. On the other we have irresponsible individuals that through their defences are curtailing our freedoms even further by casting an unfavourable light on harmless things (eg. computer games).

And the worst of it all is that nobody is forcing anybody to raise their standards in this respect. As geeks we become enraged in those instances, but do we really do anything about it? Do we have the power to do anything?

You tell me. Please.

Is desensitization real?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Has anyone reading this ever encountered real-life injury or violence after a lifetime of violent video games(*), and *not* been shocked?

Just wondering whether the theories hold up when measured against the experience of real people.

(*) or movies, or news shows, or crime dramas, etc. etc.

Not totally true

[Dreetje]

The quote is fun, but not entirely true I think.

With the current state of videogames it's likely to affect people to a certain degree. I'll reveal something embarassing to prove the point. I certainly felt like playing around with a lightsabre after playing Jedi Knight II (ok laughing break...stop now ok?). However it doesn't mean I'll take my gun after playing Quake 3 and just walk up and down the street, shooting anything that moves.

Actually why aren't tv's and movies banned yet? I certainly feel like fighting after seeing Jackie Chan or Jean-Claude van Damme. This is also the whole point of my post, games will not create wacko's. Society does, it might just push someone over a line, which is not very clear with them anyway. This can be done with any media, so blaming games is just not right.

My next game will be playing a lawyer who should try to save as many murderers from punishment. I think it will be rated R ;)

Re:Video games don't force people to do anything

[kreyg]

Not a flame, but I think a free and just society rests on two principles:

1. Presumption of innocence until proof of guilt
2. An individual is responsible for their own actions

Banning materials is a presumption of guilt - it denies them to those who would actually deal responsibly with them.

Blaming external forces rather than those taking the action absolves everyone of responsibility, as our actions are always motivated by outside forces.

The price of freedom is the risk that some will abuse freedom. If we really don't want it, let's just drop the pretense and welcome the dictatorship with open arms already.

Re:C'est~la~America

[rempelos]

There have been always forces of evil trying to destroy anything good* in this country.

* conservative

Oh really?

[IceFreak2000]

'Whatever happened [in JoLynn's death], it was not murder,'

Oh really? <sarcasm>What the hell was it then? A frag?</sarcasm>

Just because I played Super Mario x doesn't mean I go around jumping on other peoples pet turtles!

<soapbox>Murder is murder is murder. Unless you can honestly claim he was acting in self defense ("She was gonna get me with her BFG..."), then he committed murder and should be sentenced as such. Period. And IMHO, this lawyer should be struck off for trying to trivialise the actions of this person by insisting that videogames are to blame</soapbox>

Essay quote

[IceFreak2000]

I know I've already posted a comment on this story, but I just remembered something that's quite pertinant.

Remember Marilyn Mansons' essay about the blame he was being landed with over the Columbine incident? The last paragraph says everything...

I think that the National Rifle Association is far too powerful to take on, so most people choose Doom, The Basketball Diaries or yours truly. This kind of controversy does not help me sell records or tickets, and I wouldn't want it to. I'm a controversial artist, one who dares to have an opinion and bothers to create music and videos that challenge people's ideas in a world that is watered-down and hollow. In my work I examine the America we live in, and I've always tried to show people that the devil we blame our atrocities on is really just each one of us. So don't expect the end of the world to come one day out of the blue -- it's been happening every day for a long time.

I know he's a bit of a dickhead at times, but he does make a very good point. (And yes, I do realise this case has nothing to do with guns...)

deja vu?

[blankmange]

Haven't we done this before? It remains a tragedy that this highly-litigious mentality we live under (here in the U.S.) convinces us that we are not responsible for anything that happens to us, that is always somebody else's fault. This suit is a farce and a travesty; with any luck at all, it will be thrown out of court... but not likely.

Videogames and this issue

[ronfar]

First of all, I think it should be pretty clear that I think ideas like the ones this defense attorney is arguing are dangerous, authoritarian bunk. They've been relegated to the minor leagues these days, with things like PATRIOT, TIA, and Camp Delta being far scarier, but they still qualify as small-scale villainy.

I'm sure many so-called conservatives will love the whole "video game violence" drove him to do it thing. However, they should think about something. This defense is being used to try to get this murderer a lighter sentence. It isn't a civil case against the video game manufacturers as so many in the past were.

This is an attempt to make sure that video games are used as an excuse to get this murderer back on the streets sooner. He stabbed and bludgeoned a young girl to death, I don't know why he isn't up for the death penalty (it is Florida, after all, famous for giving people the chair) but I do not want him back on the streets.

So, by all means, support anti-videogame legislation or civil lawsuits to your heart's content. But remember, this thug isn't going to be magically cured of his violent tendencies just because his defense lawyer wins on the "GTA made me do it" defense. He's still going to be a particularly sadistic murderer. He should never be let out of prison for any reason at all.

Even if you believe that video games made him do it, why would you want him back on the streets? I mean if his psyche was so damaged by Final Fantasy X, how would he be cured by simple recognition of this? I remember "Son of Sam," claimed to have been influenced by his neighbor's talking, satanic dog, would you want him freed too?

They aren't talking about putting him in a lunatic asylum, after all. They are saying he'll be rehabilitated after a few years in juvenal prison. Does any person believe that? I don't, I think he'll commit rapes, murders and other brutal crimes after his short time in America's juvenal prison system.