According to the Associated Press, prisoners in a Missouri jail had managed to get themselves some videogames. Those games have now been taken away. The reasoning: These violent criminals have already crossed a line, who knows what Grand Theft Auto might make them do.
Will there be a defense of the right to play?
(Thanks to Cleveland State student Matthew Tobias for the heads-up.)
Ted>who knows what Grand Theft Auto might make them do.
Who knows indeed? Have there ever been any studies that show whether violent games/videos/music/books cause violent people to become more violent or whether these act as a safety valve so the violence is contained outside of RL?
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Dec 02, 2004 at 16:14
If one can punish the virtual for reasons of the real, should one then be able to exact a virtual consequence for real actions?
E.g. you cannot play your toon for 30 days... Or better yet, your avatar must divest herself of half of her virtual assets...
In my household access to the gameboy (by my kids) is predicated on good behavior. Why not the same for adults?
Posted by: Nathan Combs | Dec 02, 2004 at 17:22
Have there ever been any studies that show whether violent games/videos/music/books cause violent people to become more violent or whether these act as a safety valve so the violence is contained outside of RL?
Numerous, mostly inconclusive. Most suggest that people tend to get more aggressive in the short term, but less aggressive in the long term (i.e. adrenaline, followed by catharsis). But even in places where links are shown, it's a hard thing to judge - do violent games make kids violent, or do violent kids choose violent games?
It's worth noting that violent crime among kids has been decreasing since 1990 - about the time that Wolf3D came out. There's numerous ways you can interpret that data point, if you're snarky.
Posted by: Ubiq | Dec 02, 2004 at 17:50
Most of the videogames effects research would not hold water at a conference of moderately well-trained grad students in econometrics. I don't believe we've learn much of anything at all. Certainly not enough to justify sweeping policy judgments. "Violent videogames encourage recidivism!" o.0 .
I salivate at the thought that someday I may be in the audience when some of this garbage gets presented in a proper scholarly forum, that is, one where you're allowed to rip things to shreds.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Dec 02, 2004 at 22:13
As A Scot, I am at the liberal end of the US political spectrum in matters of crime and punishment. I don't want hard labour, 23-hour lockdown or the like. But games for inmates?!? A right to play?!? In this world gone mad, only those so super-smart as I will remain to say: gimme a break.
Posted by: Endie | Dec 03, 2004 at 06:52
Castronova> I salivate at the thought that someday I may be in the audience when some of this garbage gets presented in a proper scholarly forum, that is, one where you're allowed to rip things to shreds.
Why this desire to rip things to shreds? :-)
Actually, I think the association of fun or entertainment with abuse directed towards the human body has a negative effect on society => acceptance of violence.
Games are of course just a drop in the ocean compared to other media... That doesn't mean it is inconsequential though. That something is difficult to measure doesn't mean the hypothesis is wrong...
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Dec 03, 2004 at 10:40
Except that enjoyment of violent games and media does not necessarily translate into violent people, or even slake an appetite for violence. For example, in Killing Monsters, Gerard Jones points out that kids engage in violent play in order to feel like they have power, in a world where they are typically powerless. It's part of them growing up, and they are cannier than most parents imagine when recognizing what is real and what is fantasy.
Posted by: Damion Schubert | Dec 03, 2004 at 14:22
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2004-12-01&res=l
Posted by: Scott Jennings | Dec 03, 2004 at 19:07
My opinions:
1. Art affects people. If it didn't, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting as it is.
2. Not every effect is a desireable one. At least, not from the perspective that things harmful to society are not desireable.
3. Censoring art is bad.
4. Responsible artists are good.
5. Admonishing artists for not being responsible in considering the effects of their art is not censorship.
6. I don't know whether or not violent video games result in violent behavior, but it seems to me that it would be wise to err on the side of caution.
7. In any case, the glorification of violence (or associating it with what is fun or "cool") seems irresponsible to me.
--Phin
Posted by: Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz | Dec 09, 2004 at 19:04
http://blackjack.cnt-group.com > http://blackjack.cnt-group.com
http://blackjack.cnt-group.com > blackjack
Posted by: | Aug 07, 2005 at 05:47