Can't Blame The Video Game For This Killing
from the responsibility-on-the-actual-killer dept
It appears the strategy of blaming Grand Theft Auto for a crime has failed again. It's the strategy that lawyer Jack Thompson trots out every time there's a crime involving a kid who plays video games, despite plenty of evidence that video games don't increase youth violence. And, of course, it's not just Grand Theft Auto. Thompson is quite worried about the negative effects of such dangerous games as The Sims. Of course, the real issue is that Thompson is trying to take the responsibility off of the individual who actually committed the crime -- and that is a real disservice to society. People need to take responsibility for their actions, and Thompson is trying to remove the responsibility and put it on companies he doesn't like. So far, however, that strategy has pretty much backfired everywhere it's been attempted, and in the latest case, it looks like it's failed again. Instead of blaming the video game, the actual criminal who killed three police officers has been convicted of the crime.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Odds Ratios
For a given case of a prozac user going psychotic and killing 3 police officers, should we blame the patient or the prozac? Did not the prozac maker increase the risks of psychosis for the population as a whole?
In logistic regression, where the outcome is a "yes" or "no", e.g. "kill someone" or "not kill someone", we consider contributing factors that affect the probability of a "yes". If a hundred people go to a Techdirt party, and 70 of them develop severe food poisoning, it's quite possible that the other 30 ate contaminated food but still didn't get it. We would take a tally of all the foods people ate at the party, and perform a logistic regression to determine which food has the highest odds ratio for causing a food poisoning outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Odds Ratios
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Odds Ratios
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Odds Ratios
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Odds Ratios
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One more time...
b) People commit crimes
This does not show that "a" caused "b". Without more evidence, it's even possible that a smaller proportion of people (a) commit crimes (b) than those in the population of a whole, making violent video games A Good Thing. We just don't know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more time...
I have, however, just seen a docu on National Geographic. It seems that during WWII only 25% of all soldiers actually fired their weapons and only 2% effectively tried to kill the enemy. Most soldiers were simply killed by artillery, bombs, machineguns or disease and such. The natural aversion against taking a life is simply too much for most people.
The same pattern is reported about earlier wars like the American War of Independence and the Napoleonic wars. Some weapons collected after battles would contain upwards of 23 loads of ammonution. The soldier would keep loading the weapon for show but would never actually fire. In the napoleonic wars regiments of a thousand men would fire volleys at close range and actually kill only 10-15 of the enemy...
But... this of course dosn't really work in a modern army so training methods have been changed accordingly to make soldiers more "comfortable" with the whole killing thing. First of all the circular bulls-eye targets have been changed to targets more resembling humans, since no bulls-eye targets have been known to attack anyone in recent years. Secondly more realistic training involving simmunition (hardcore paintball x 100) has been implemented so you get as close to the real thing as possible. It's not kill or get killed - it's hurt or get hurt - the next best thing.
When all is said and done the number of troops who actully tries to kill the enemy is almost up to 100% today. Ye!
My point is this - maybe playing realistic computer games can "train" you in sort-of the same way as the military is doing. The guy in question did shoot all of the officers in the head which kinda signals a sort-of cold bloodedness.
But again - in Western Europe about as many people play GTA as in the US. We don't really have the same amount of mass-murderers over here. Culture seems to be more important - but maybe games can train potential killers better...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more time...
Probably most soldiers didn't "effectively" try to kill the enemy because this is risky. While you are e.g. watching the enemy, trying for a good target, they are probably doing the same to you. The safest thing is to keep your own head down and fire approximately in the right direction.
The training you describe sounds likely to make soldiers more comfortable with risking their own safety, and hence more willing to fight effectively. It is not proof that they become more "comfortable with the whole killing thing".
It would take careful analysis to separate these effects (and other possible explanations) and it doesn't sound as though the National Geographic program attempted this.
To return to real life, if game players become more willing to take personal risks, this need not increase violence. Just general low-level crime, disorder, and acting like punks. But as teens behave like that already it might be difficult to prove anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Odds Ratios
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And you know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And you know...
What are you trying to say? Who would you sue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And you know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]