Slashdot Mirror
A Unique Perspective on a 'Game-Related' Tragedy
Megnatron writes "Penny Arcade has a letter from the stepmother of one of the kids who was recently charged with killing a homeless man. Her article is an extremely sobering tale of the problems dealing with troubled teen. She explains how, in this situation, the parents did everything they possibly could. And, in a refreshing twist, she absolves the games industry of any blame for the tragedy these kids perpetrated. From her missive: 'Video games DID NOT make this kid who he was, and it's unfortunate that the correlation is there. The thing that really gets me with this whole thing is that the kid knows full well that by equating what he's done to a video game, that he will generate controversy and media coverage. It makes me sick that the media is jumping all over this, because that is exactly the result that he wants. The only good thing (if there is such a thing) that has come out of this whole ordeal is that the kid is behind bars. That is exactly where he needs to be.'" Her letter is a passionate, troubling story, but well worth reading.
But I'm curious how PA has verified that this person is who she claims to be.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
I usually like to blame the parents, as it is often their fault. You read these stories where the parents had no idea what was going on (Colombine: pipe bomb building in the garage???). Or where the parent just defends them ("Little Johnny never would have done that. The other kids made him do it.").
I gotta say reading that was kind of scary. If I had to take a guess I'd say he is a sociopath (literally), but that's just a guess. He is obviously very intelligent (calling people abusers). The fact they kept investigating it doesn't surprise me (what if it was true one of those times) but he knew how to get power. Kids can also act out like that if they are being abused, so that would lend "credibility".
I'm sure the divorces and remarriages in his life didn't help, but if it really is sociopathic, that probably wouldn't matter. I can offer suggestions of things that might have helped him (if he was help-able). Military boot camp, having him sent to jail those times the police came. Making him a ward of the state. Trying to give him possession of his own life (can't remember the term, basically having him declared an independent adult).
She said she tried "everything" so I don't know which of those were done. I'm amazed that she put up with it for so long.
This kid is REALLY the exception to the rule. He would have been exactly the same if this happened in 1960.
Too bad this kid will probably be the example of what video games do to kids that the media trots out constantly.
People like him (from her description, assuming it's true), are one of the things that make me believe in true evil.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
The parent post is correct, but neglects the salient point that when I was a kid (i'm 37), a valid response to the conditions noted would be to send the kid to a military school where they'd do the beating for you.
Yeah, those got tamed by the leftist social theorists too.
So basically we have to wait for the pathetic scum to kill innocents before we do anything about it. Great improvement. Kudos to the 60's crowd for doing us a real service, yet again.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
...beating doesn't work either. He's a full blown psychopath, and about all you can do is drug him into a stupor or lock him up. We don't know how to fix them. Would probably be kinder (for him AND the other prisoners) to euthanize him. Much better than graduating him from prison in 15 years...he's going to be a real, grown up monster then, with all that lovely prison lore and culture burned into him. You can blame the liberals AND the conservatives for his continued existence. I think he falls under both of their "sacredness of life" category.
Just because it has a humanoid form does not make it human.
Sadly, the children know this and manipulate it. Have been doing so for a very long time -- they know you have no actual authority over them if they choose not to listen to you. You can't actually compel them in any way to listen.
There were enough cases of child abuse in the past that all of the agencies are now required by law to investigate all claims of abuse. Denial by the accused abusers is basically ignored as all guilty people would deny it. They basically have to presume you're guilty in order to try to protect the child's welfare (it's well meaning, but not often reliable). And, in the end, it's difficult to disprove such claims.
(I know someone going through court now because a neighbor witnessed him hoist his child into the car, and then claimed she saw/though she saw him smacking the child around. When his wife decided to leave him for his best friend, she started coaching the 4 year old into claiming daddy was touching her in bad places -- in court, the child has admitted that mommy told her to say that. On the heels of the first erroneous claim, the second claim of now sexual abuse is very hard to dispell: basically it's compounded on him. Such things get very ugly quick.)
I find it scary that a child who is repeatedly in trouble could fool the teachers into thinking "I didn't do it, and by the way, my parents abused me". Especially when this child was over 6 feet and over 200lbs -- a very big 14 year old indeed.
I realize you can't suddenly start treating all accusations lightly, for fear of ignoring the problem. But, there has to be a better way of looking into these things. Unfortunately, an unfounded claim of abuse can ruin your life just as quickly and easily as a verifiable, documented case of abuse -- people will go after you with equal zeal and tar you with the same brush.
The fact that repeatedly, police and school officials were told that this kid was way out of control is scary indeed. The fact that an apparent "thrill kill" had to take place before anyone would believe them is appalling. Hopefully at least something good comes out of this in the long run.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Ultimately, humans have free will and choose their own actions. Saying someone is "born bad" is equivilant to saying that they have been possessed by Satan. It's not a valid argument.
I'll will admit that people can be born with violent temperaments. They can be born with harsh attitudes or a lack of empathy. However all but the most severely mentally disabled are born with free will and the ability to reason. People may not intuatively understand right from wrong, but they still know what is acceptable and what is not.
This is why I don't accept the argument that someone is not responsible for their actions because they've had a "hard life" or were "born bad" or live in a "bad neighbourhood". I can be sympathetic, but ultimately I must insist that people take responsibilty for the decisions they have made. I don't think it's a lot to ask.
Blaming society, or genetics, or your parents, or video games or anything else for decisions you yourself have made is an insult to everyone who does accept the consequences of their actions. It's an insult to your own dignity as you are claiming you have lost your own free will.
There are people in this world who were born with physical and mental disabilities. People who have suffered accidents, abuse, insult, poverty and hardship of every kind. Even people who play video games. And most of these people live their lives, despite having to work that much harder at them. They overcome their problems, make an honest living and contribute to the society they live in. Often they contribute more than other more fortunate individuals. Even people with violent personalities or troubled pasts can still find a positive place in society.
When you argue that people are "born bad" or otherwise don't have free will, you're arguing that all these people are wasting their time. That they will never overcome their difficulties and they should either give up an committ a crime, cause trouble, go insane or just kill themselves. That is a flawed assumption. We all have the power to change our own lifes, and to alter the course of our lives. That's what seperates humans from animals.
This kid could have lead a better life. He chose not to. It had nothing to do with his mental chemistry. That was solid enough to allow him to dress himself every morning, walk without stumbling and converse with people when he needed to. He wasn't born bad. He chose to be bad. His parents didn't make that choice. Neither did his genes, or his playstation, or his neighbourhood. He did. Anything else is just an excuse.
May the Maths Be with you!
After reading the "stepmother's" reply I have to say yea it probably was the parent's fault. This kid seems to have been tossed back and forth between the "father" and the mother. The stepmother's language in her reply was what I would expect for a high school kid and not a parent of a child. In all the discussion of what they did and didn't do, I at no time heard the word love. I heard hate a lot but not love. Yea this kid might have had issues from the start but I have to say that didn't sound like he had much of a chance with the parents he had.
Yes he was unmanageable at 15 but what about at two? How about at five? How much love and time did he get at seven?
Read a bit more closely, and you'll catch this bit:
I am sorry this got so long. I have been reading PA since the very beginning, and I feel that both of you are very much like me. I think we are the same age (29) and I have been a lifelong gamer like the two of you.
If she's 29, then she would have been around 14 when the kid was born -- and remember, she describes herself as a kind-of stepmother. It sounds like she didn't get involved until he was already a teenager -- too late for her to have much impact, especially if she was only in her mid-20's herself.
So we can't draw any conclusions about her bad parenting when he was a baby. Also, note that he was living with his dad until he decided to leave -- and move in with his natural mom, who had even less control over the situation. If we must conclude that nurture had a larger role than nature, then we have to look at her role, long before the letter's author was involved.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
I really don't understand how you can blame the parents based on the information provided. Sure, the parents split up, but there are plenty of parents who divorce or separate and still have well-adjusted children. Beyond that, we simply have no idea what this kid's childhood was like. We also have no idea how long the stepmother has been on the scene, so I don't see how you can expect her to comment on how much love the child received at any specific age, much less support any conclusions based on the presence or absence of the word "love" in a letter.
It seems like a great modern fad (and fallacy) to blame parents for every lousy thing a kid does, as if people have become desperate to take nature out of the classic "nature vs. nurture" argument. But none of us are shaped purely by our environment, as the mention of the kid's younger brother being reasonably well-adjusted supports. We all have judgement and free will, so unless some actual evidence surfaces to support the notion that the parents somehow meaningfully contributed to these horrible acts, let's place blame back on the kid who committed them, shall we?
Some people are not psychologically designed to respond to stimulus the same way; some are visual learners, some are auditory, some learn better from example and demonstration, some more from reading, some from fidgeting around with things till they understand how it operates.
Some are born completely without the ability to discern cause and effect, and some are born with a complete psychological immunity to corrective tactics.
Some are pathological liars.
Yes, you can be "born bad." I've seen it many times. There are schoolteachers who think "no kid is really a bully" and try to "understand" everyone: these schoolteachers are retarded fucktards who let bullying happen.
The same goes for the retarded fucktards who took the kid's word over the parents who were screaming for protection and help in trying to discipline him.
Word to the cops: if the PARENTS are begging you to put him in jail and prosecute, WHAT THE FUCK do you think you're doing handing him back off?
Those cops should be fired for laziness and incompetence.
Ultimately, humans have free will and choose their own actions.
What makes you say that? Free will is an assumption, not a scientific fact.
When you argue that people are "born bad" or otherwise don't have free will, you're arguing that all these people are wasting their time. That they will never overcome their difficulties and they should either give up an committ a crime, cause trouble, go insane or just kill themselves. That is a flawed assumption. We all have the power to change our own lifes, and to alter the course of our lives. That's what seperates humans from animals.
In a sense, that's irrelevant to society, however. Philosophically it's all well and good, and well worth debating into the long, dark hours of the night.
Society as a whole is (or should be) unconcerned. If a human CHOOSES to act like a wild animal - in fact, worse than one if you concede free will - he should be treated as one: caged, cared for to a minimal standard of care, and ultimately if not able to behave within norms that society sets - euthanized.
For example, I know that Alfonso Rodruiguez was someobody's little boy, once. But now (after his rape and murder of Dru Sjodin) he is simply a human-shaped dangerous nuisance that it is in the public interest to remove.
As far as the OP's lad, he's not stupid. He knows that society will give him chance after chance after chance, in the vain hope that he will develop something analogous to a conscience. Why should we bother? Because of "Human compassion"? Pull the other one - I have more pre-emptive compassion for his next victim than I ever would for him.
-Styopa
Do you know what the letter was in response too? She has the right to tell her side of the story when someone accuses her of failing or screwing up. She did not "sell out" this child. This child sold himself out when he went and MURDERED a man then played with his corpse. This kid has a HISTORY of ABUSING HANDIFUCKINGCAPED children. You know what else. He learned that he could get away with it to, as long as he said the right things.
She did not betray him. She did not sell him out. There was nothing to sell out in the first place. Hell what do you want her to do. Is she supposed to defend him? How do you defend a child like this? He was from a broken home, fine. He murdered someone. You either jail him, jail him for life in solitary, execute him, or give him a free pass because he couldn't fucking cope with the same shit alot of other kids do. What do you do when he gets out of jail and kills again? Another free pass? Hell the woman tried to do what she could.
You mad
...of all evil in the universe. I knew the liberals hated America, and wanted Osama Bin Ladin to be president, but I hadn't realized that they also wanted bums to be beaten to death. The bastards!
Had the conservative policies been in place, maybe he would have been locked up sooner, but I can guarentee he would have been fucking up kids in Juvie...creating more little monsters out of kids that already had problems. Sooner or later they would have let him out, too. Maybe the life of that bum would have been saved...but only if you lock the kid up forever before he kills anybody. You have to weigh the risk of him doing serious damage against the probablility he's just freaking out on hormones and will straighten out. A potential wasted teenager vs. a potential wasted old bum.
Locking people up with other messed up people doesen't tend to make any of them less messed up...and for the most part you have to let them out someday. Prison does not rehabilitate anybody, or serve as much of a deterrent to crime....all you have to look at is the recividism rates to know that. What comes out is worse than what went in. It's cruel and pointless, and its only done because we as a society can't quite bring ourselves to put down dangerous animals of our own species.
Ideally, we could spend the cash to get our prisons under control, and make a real effort to rehabilitate. If rehabilitation fails, the person is euthanized. Unfortunately, our government is way too incompentant and corrupt to do this in a sane or just manner...so we have...what we have...courtesy of the Prison Guards Union.
I challenge you to define 'choose'.
If it means "the behaviors selected by the person's neurons", then 'choose' is meaningless: it simply means that they do whatever their brain must (as a physical object) lawfully do in the situation. In this case, it is easy to image a corrupt brain, in the sense that the neural potentials favor sadistic outcomes.
If, however, it means "causelessly or spiritually imposing a decision upon physical matter", then you have an even bigger problem: how does anyone choose to do bad things? Is it then their spirit (or whatever) that is corrupt?
So, stating that we "choose our own actions" is useless. Actually it's worse than useless because not only does the statement fail to convey any data, but it makes it harder for a discussion to focus on the exact locus of sadistic behaviors. These days, the word 'choose' has become the ultimate hand-wave. As your statement shows, it has come to mean "Human decisions are unconnected to reality, so abandon this line of inquiry altogether."
I rather think that behavior is absolutely connected to my brain's content and state. And that is why me-the-person can be considered reliably good (or evil) -- because my behavior has a lawful cause.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Sorry, I do not live in your fucked-up country. I live in a country which largely follows "my ideals" and which is prospering. If you were honest with yourself, you'd have to try and find a better explanation for your problem than easy scapegoats.
Like, I dunno, extreme social inequalities driving people into crime? A completely ineffective "war on drugs" that is doing nothing to curb the problem, but instead gives more power to criminals and fills up the jails? And so on, and so forth.
No, you're right, let's beat up kids instead, that'll fix it.
He got himself kicked out of every group he was in... because he did things like beating up disabled children, assault and battery, and general defiance. He damaged other people, constantly. That is not something that can be tolerated. If my child was in an art or drama group and found some asshole kid beating up his classmates, beating up him, disrupting activities, and the like, I'm not going to let my child be in that situation - either he goes or my child does. That is what every rational parent should do.
If you RTFA, you would know that the real trouble was the system's refusal to lock him away from other children and even his own parents because they were socialized to believe that it's never the kid's fault, and that parents are always abusers. They were too lenient, not too restrictive.
Yeah, a kid died. I wonder how much of that has to do with permissive government policies instituted by people with philosophies much like your own.
Does the inability to perform evil make one good, or merely sub-human?
"A Clockwork Orange" was a vastly underrated book...