I’m posting an essay I wrote for english. I actually have another essay due tomorrow which I’ve done nothing on, and it’s already 10 o’clock. Whee!
What is the Effect of Violence in Video Games?
Heads being blasted apart by sawed-off shotguns with the accompanying blood flying all over the place is just another scene in many video games. Critics of violence in video games claim that these video games cause kids and adults to become desensitized to violence and their nature to be more aggressive and violent. They even go so far as to say that a video game caused the Columbine school shooting in 1999. If this were true, the widespread influence of video games with violence can and will cause many more deaths in the future. However, there are also those who defend video games, stating that people know video games do not represent reality and thus would not imitate what is happening. Despite their rising realism, evidence points to video games not causing violence and have been shown to be helpful rather than detrimental.
No substantial correlation between video games and violence has ever been demonstrated in a laboratory or real life setting. In “Virtual Violence and Real Aggressiveness; Is There a Correlation?” by Marc Saltzman, it quotes a figure offered by the FBI’s Unified Crime Report that says, “violent crime has decreased by almost 20 percent between 1991-97, and juvenile violence is down 40 percent from 1993-1997 just as video games sales became the fastest-growing segment of the American entertainment industry” (1). Clearly, if video games were causing violence, there would be an increase in juvenile violence. An increasing number of kids would have been adversely affected by an increasing amount of video games available. These kids would have contributed to an increase in violent crimes, if there were a link. Video games cannot be causing any rise in violent behavior because there is no rise in violent behavior. Additionally, violence is not dependent on a game, because “video games and computers are not inherently positive or negative; like all technology, they are neutral. Their effects depend on how they are used” (Saltzman 2). Video games cannot be inherently evil, as are things such as genocide. They do not cause violence, only the people playing them can. Any normal person can distinguish between real violence and video game violence and their subsequent consequences. Violent tendencies are in the mind before the video games are played; video games do not teach violence.
Video games can serve as a tool for education, not violence. An article titled “Center’s Study Shows Video Games Can Be Beneficial” by Edward Chiao cites that “avid computer gamers showed higher levels of visual attention and spatial representation than non-gamers — skills necessary in today’s science and technology world” (1). In only focusing on violence within video games, the opposition fails to see the inherent benefits. Evidence between video games and learning has been readily linked, while the link with violent behavior is still insubstantial. Video games have been shown to have more good than bad. This applies to all games, not just games that are considered “educational.” Moreover, Kurt Squire in “Cultural Framing of computer/Video Games” cites another study where, “[i]n 1985, Mitchell gave Atari 2600 consoles to twenty families and found that most families used the game systems as a shared play activity. Instead of leading to poor school performance, increased family violence, or strained family interactions, video games were a positive force on family interactions” (2-3). This information touts video games while also disproving violent behavior as a result in video games. More studies could show even more convincingly how video games can help all members of families, which would further prove the benefit of video games. Again, there was no special emphasis on the games being deemed “educational;” the system itself helped families. The article also goes on to say: “[D]rawing analogies between symbolic representations in the game and their real-life analogs is one of active interpretation, and suggests that students might benefit from systematic explanations or presentations of information. In similar research in anchored instruction and problem-based learning environments, John Bransford and colleagues have found that students perform best when given access to lectures in the context of completing open-ended complex problem solving tasks” (Squire 5-6). Those who oppose violence in video games completely disregard the fact that video games can be used to teach kids how violence is wrong. Game players drawing analogies between real life and video games know that what happens in the video games is fantasy and would know not to do that in real life. Energy used for criticizing video games because of their violence, which is not even related to real-life violence, would be better used by providing resources to help use video games as a learning tool. Indeed, children occupied with games and education will be less likely to commit a crime.
Violence is becoming increasingly realistic in video games, but this, and other arguments put forth by the opposition, still fails to establish a clear causal correlation between the two. Researchers asked college students to play either Wolfenstein 3D, a violent game, or Myst, a non-violent game, then were told to punish opponents with noise blasts, and the researches found that “those who had played the violent game tended to use longer noise bursts” (Saltzman 1). However, this statement is unshakably refuted by the fact that the difference in bursts was .16 seconds (Squire 2). Certainly, a difference of a mere .16 seconds does not constitute a substantial augmentation in aggressive behavior. The difference is so small that it could even go the other way if the experiment were repeated again with more people. Eugene F. Provenzo Jr., in his article “Violence in Video Games is a Serious Problem,” states, “[G]ames that employ a first-person shooter model represent a significant step beyond the tiny cartoon figures that were included in Mortal Kombat in the mid-1990s. In fact, there has been a continuous evolution of the realism of these games as computing power has increased and become cheaper” (3). It is irrefutable that the violence in video games is becoming more real. Yet, since there is not causal link, the level of violence in video games is irrelevant. The principle of realism is not only applied to violence, but to other aspects of the game, such as more intelligent reactions by enemies. Increasing realism is a technique employed to make a game more fun. Dave Grossman, with his article “Violent Video Games Teach Children to Enjoy Killing,” makes an argument that “individuals that law enforcement agents face are ever-more trained, ever-better qualified, and they are concerned that children have their own private police-quality firearms training sitting in the arcade and they are able to play it” (3). Saying that video games produce better-qualified criminals is akin to saying racing video games can produce great NASCAR drivers. Furthermore, video game systems come packaged with controllers, not guns, and computers come with keyboards and mice. The objects commonly used to manipulate video games significantly differ too much from guns to possibly provide any increased gun-handling ability. Games and real life are completely different. Even if games were to help, those using video games as training tools would have figured this out beforehand, thus still invalidating the premise that it is the video games which cause violent behavior.
Evidence for correlations between violent behavior and video games have failed to show up, while evidence for correlations between learning and video games have shown up. Video games do contain violence. Yet, it cannot cause such a thing as a school shooting because there is no causal relationship. In fact, violence has gone down in recent years. There are those who are trying to say video games are wrong, but they themselves must be shown to be wrong. Otherwise, the benefits of video games, such as education, will never be fully realized. No half-truths, such as in the aforementioned study involving punishment times between different games, can ever disprove that video games do not cause violence.
Works Cited
Chiao, Edward. “Center’s Study Shows Video Games Can Be Beneficial.” South End 19 Mar. 2003. 22 May 2003
Grossman, Dave. “Violent Video Games Teach Children to Enjoy Killing.” Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale Databases. Infotrac. Moreau Catholic High School Lib. 22 May 2003
Provenzo, Eugene F., Jr. “Violence in Video Games Is a Serious Problem.” Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale Databases. Infotrac. Moreau Catholic High School Lib. 22 May 2003
Saltzman, Marc. “Virtual Violence and Real Aggressiveness: Is There Correlation.” Gannett News Service 20 June 2000. SIRS Researcher. SIRS Knowledge Source. Moreau Catholic High School Lib. 22 May 2003
Squire, Kurt. “Cultural Framing of Computer/Video Games.” Game Studies. 22 May 2003
Ian Quirk
Mr. S.
Honors English 10
5/28/03
Capital Punishment Does Not Deter Capital Crimes
Capital punishment has been a part of human society for millennia. It is the final and most powerful method a ruling body possesses of showing criminals that they think their crimes are unacceptable. Due to this age old tradition’s longevity, one would logically conclude that it must be time tested and proven to be the most effective method in deterring crime. No such decision however, has ever been made. In 1967 the United States held a moratorium on the death penalty and due to Supreme Court rulings, no executions were held between 1968 and 1975. Since then, the laws barring the death penalty have been revoked and it is again legal for our government to kill in the pursuit of justice. Debates have raged over whether or not the death penalty is effective in deterring violent crime and has become a crucial issue that every prestigious politician must adopt a clear stand point on. Taking into account an overwhelming body of statistical information, expert opinions, and testimony from criminals and law enforcement, one can infer that since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 it has had no significant effect on deterring the crimes for which it can be invoked.
Proponents of both sides agree the death penalty does nothing to deter crimes of passion. William Tucker, a death penalty advocate and a freelance journalist for the New York Times, started, “Executions probably don’t deter ‘crimes of passion’. Arguments between spouses, friends, or lover that escalate into murder probably won’t be deterred because there is no rational process leading to this sort of homicide” (1). Although, admittedly, he goes on to argue how the death penalty deters other premeditated crimes, this disclaimer reveals a serious fallacy in his argument. Drug abusers, alcoholics and religious fanatics commit murder with a similar disregard for the consequences. In a revolutionary paper detesting the effectiveness of capital punishment, Hugo Adam Bedau says, “Most capital crimes are committed during moments of great emotional stress or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, when logical thinking has been suspended . . . Furthermore, the death penalty is a futile threat for political terrorists because they usually act in the name of an ideology that honors its martyrs” (2). Since “crimes of passion” constitute such a large fraction of the total crimes, they can not be overlooked as a minuscule detail. The Civil Liberties Association states that slightly over half of all capital crimes are “crimes of passion” (3). Whether intoxicated, emotional or ignorant, these crimes cannot be stopped by the threat of even the severest punishment. If a so called “deterrent” is without a doubt ineffective in stopping more than half of what it is supposed to, then it clearly is not very efficient.
Another way to gauge the effectiveness of capitol punishment is to evaluate the opinions of people who study crime professionally. At a press conference, former U.S. attorney general Reno said, “I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point” (Facts 6). As a high powered political leader and a public supporter of pro-death penalty policy, the fact that she has failed in her search to support her beliefs is very significant. It is especially significant because in policy, she supports the death penalty. Although, a democrat, she still thought the death penalty had a place in our society, and as the foremost law enforcement officer in the nation, she would certainly have been privy to any information that would substantiate her beliefs. Since she searched all that can be searched on the subject and found nothing, it is logical to conclude that perhaps there is nothing to find.
Similar sentiment is found among Criminologists. Gallup, a national surveying company conducted a poll of sixty seven of the nation’s top criminologists. The pole included high ranking members of The American Society of Criminology (ASC), The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) and The Law and Society Association. They were chosen based on their years of experience in capitol punishment research and were asked a number of questions ranging from their opinions on the humanity of the punishment to specifically its deterrence effect. In the specific case of deterrence over long prison sentences Gallup said, “Only three of our respondents (4.5%) agreed, and none strongly agreed, with the statement, ‘overall, over the last twenty years, the threat or use of the death penalty in the united states has been a stronger deterrent to homicide than the threat or use of long (or life) prison sentences.’ Those disagreeing or strongly disagreeing included 92.6% of the respondents and 96% of those with an opinion” (4). In an analysis of this survey Edward Hunter said, “The rates of consensus were much higher on this question than I ever thought possible. We never see 90 percent of criminologists agree on anything” (2). Since this is the only thing that criminologists seem to agree on, it must be a very strong point, and there must be a lot of hard evidence to substantiate it. Criminologists spend their entire work days pouring over studies on the death penalty and related issues. It they had read even one article with a valid argument for the opposition, then the rate agreeing would be much higher. Since the rate of agreement is so low, it seems that these educated people have never read anything particularly cogent or memorable supporting the death penalty.
Gallup conducted a similar survey on county police chiefs. The article states, “Telephone surveys were conducted with 386 randomly selected police chiefs and county sheriffs from throughout the U.S. little support for the deterrence argument was found. Among six choices presented as ‘primary’ ways to reduce violent crime, only 1% of the law enforcement respondents chose the death penalty” (Experts 3). On their own, police officers are hardly more convincing than the general public, but when coupled with the congruous opinions of higher authorities, a compelling pattern arises. Law enforcement, scientists and our government are three sources that hardly every agree on anything, much less something as highly debated as the death penalty. The fact that all three seem to hold the same beliefs on this subject is nothing short of remarkable. This seamless agreement may not prove in a divine way, whether or not the death penalty is effective, but is definitely shows that to spite their efforts, the opposition has failed to manufacture any convincing literature on the subject. If this is the case, then their argument can’t be a very good one.
To take a step back from opinion and speculation, one can compare the murder rates between regions with and without the death penalty. One of the broadest comparisons that can be made is the one between the U.S. and Canada. Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976 and the murder rate has since dropped. Canada reports, “The number of homicides in 2001 (554) was 23% lower than the number of homicides in 1975 (721), the year before the death penalty was abolished. In addition, homicide rates in Canada are generally three times lower than homicide rates in the U.S., which uses the death penalty” (Facts 4). This type of analysis is very broad. Canada and America are very different places. America has many more guns and a higher percentage of the population lives in big cites. To spite these very worthy objections, the same sort of conclusion can be made comparing the states in the U.S.
A study done by the New York times states that, “During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% – 101% higher than in states without the death penalty” and, “Ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above” (Facts 7). This survey shows an important correlation on the semi-macro level between areas with and without the death penalty. It can be argued that because states are also very large, one with more cites and higher density would have a disadvantage in this type of survey. Keith Harries, a professional surveyer, conducted a study including 293 counties nation wide to smote just this type of problem.
The study aimed to compare similar bordering communities whose only difference was their use of the death penalty. This was supposed to flesh out any sort of inconsistencies between the comparative parties. Harris said:
“Counties were matched in pairs based on geographic location, regional context, historical development, demographic and economic variables. The pairs shared a contiguous border, but differed on use of capital punishment. The authors found no support for a deterrent effect of capital punishment at the county level comparing matched counties inside and outside states with capital punishment, with and without a death row population, and with and without executions” (Facts 2).
This conclusion is very important because it takes out the variable of the overall composition of a state and narrows the results down to areas that can actually be accounted for and analyzed. Many of the arguments thrown at both the Canada/U.S. comparison and the State/State comparison can no longer be used and they reach more or less the same results. In these three cases, a simple conclusion can be made. Regions with the death penalty do not have any less murder than areas that without it. Of course this higher murder rate can not be solely attributed to the fact that those regions posses the death penalty as a means of punishment. There are thousands of other variables that are almost impossible to take into consideration. Poverty, population density, unemployment rates, racial demographics, mass media and drug abuse are just a few, but if the death penalty were really as effective as its supporters claim, then these variables should not affect the eventual outcome, and the statistics should speak for themselves. If the death penalty really worked, then there would be drastically lower murder rates in areas that exercise it. This, however, is plainly not the case and therefore capitol punishment can not be very effective in deterring murder.
There are two main arguments the death penalty supporters rally for: 1) Once a killer is dead, he can not kill again, and 2) Yearly executions have a significant effect on the murder rate. Thomas Sowell, a republican journalist, states in, “The Death Penalty Is a Deterrent”, “We know that the death penalty definitely deters those who are executed” (1). This may be true, but life imprisonment does the same thing. The type of prisoner who even has a chance at being executed would certainly be sentenced to life without parole if they didn’t get the death penalty. Locking them up for life keeps them from hurting the public just as well as killing them does, so there obviously isn’t any unique deterrence effect there.
Also, the supporters are constantly trying to create these mini cause and effect scenarios between the number of executions and the following year’s murder rate. In some cases these numbers do seem to match up, but when taken on any sort of trend, the conclusions soon fall apart. For instance, one such correlation was made by Jay Johansen in his paper “The Death Penalty Deters Crime”, “The number of executions suddenly went up in 1983, and in that year, the homicide rate showed its biggest one-year drop” (1). To deconstruct this argument, yes, the number of execution went from 5 to 21 and, yes, the following year the murder rate went down. What he forgot to mention is that the next year, with about the same number of executions, it went back up again even farther than it had dropped. A similar deceptive point was reached in William Tucker’s paper, “Executions Deter Felony Murders” when he said, “Beginning in 1966, the rate of murder skyrocketed, soaring by 1980 to more than double the 1963 rate” (2). Again, to deconstruct, this explosion in murders in 1966 could not have been due to the number of executions because the moratorium on executions was not held until 1968. Unless these criminals worked with two years of foresight, it must be due to something else. Also, he says that it continued to climb until 1980. This is also true, but what he failed to mention was that executions resumed in 1976. According to his theory, the murder rate should have started dropping again in 1976, but the rate actually kept climbing each year until 1982.
Another point to consider is that the data concerning the exact number of executions per year are fairly close kept public records. Before the internet, one had to physically go to Washington D.C. and ask for them. This would have resulted in a relatively few number of individuals actually acquiring these records. Since the invention of the internet, anyone with the records can put them on the internet, and millions of people can now see them from their own home. Obviously, if knowledge of these records was what caused the murder rate to fall, then it should fall at a much higher rate starting in 1993 due to the invention of the internet. No such drop occurred and the fluctuations in the last ten years have been about the same as the preceding 20. This definitely shows that the number of executions has no effect on the overall trend of the murder rate.
These arguments obviously aren’t very cogent. They are full of holes, but are still used by politicians to seem symbolically tough on crime. These types of actions can not be allowed to continue. They are not based in fact, and they kill people. Statistics show it, experts believe it, and the challengers themselves practically admit it. The death penalty does not realistically deter the crimes for which it is punishable. Policy makers and high powered personnel need to realize this so they can take a look at the bigger picture. Less money could be spent on something that doesn’t make sense, and more could be spent on programs and facilities that deal with the root issues. If this process were carried out in an honest and efficient manner, then the elements causing crime could be sensibly reduced. This would obviously cause a much greater fall in any type of crime, capitol or not, than the death penalty does. It would make the world a happier and safer place to live.
Works Cited
The Case Against the Death Penalty. Ed. Hugo Adam Bedau. 8 Apr. 2003 .
Facts about Deterrence and the Death Penalty. 8 Apr. 2003 .
Johansen, Jay. “The Death Penalty Deters Crime.” Gail Groups Summer 1997. Baisl Database. Opposing Viewpoints. MCHS Library. 8 Apr/ 2003 .
Notis, Christine, and Edward Hunter. “The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crime.” Gail Groups Summer 1997. Baisl Database. Opposing Viewpoints. MCHS Library. 9 Apr. 2003 .
Radelet, Micheal L., and Ronald L. Akers. “Most Experts Believe the Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crime.” Gail Groups Spring 1993. Baisl Database. Opposing Viewpoints. MCHS Library. 8 Apr. 2003 .
Sowell, Thomas, and John J. Dilulio, Jr. “The Death Penalty Is a Deterrent.” Gail Group Spring 1994. Baisl Database. Opposing Viewpoints. MCHS Library. 8 Apr. 2003 .
Tucker, William. “Executions Deter Felony Murders.” Gail Groups Fall 1981. Baisl Database. Opposing Viewpoints. MCHS Library. 8 Apr. 2003 .
“Capital Punishment.” British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. 27 May 2003 .
Hi my name is brooke nd i think video games do not cause vilonce, if they like those kind of games then it means they alreadie had a litlle bit of agreesiveness i cant spell im only 13
I think that violence in video games is a plus. it lets normal people like me get out our daily aggression without breaking the law or hurting people. Its a video game for crying out loud. some of my favorite games are hockey, grand theft auto vice city, and true crime. I feel that people use violence in video games as an excuse instead of realizing that some people are just messed up in the head. yeah i like killing innocent people in video games. but i know the difference between fantasy and reality. I can honestly say that i have never and will never physically harm anyone. video games are not the reason for peoples problems.
jon
jon makes a good point..but i disagree…video gmaes give ppl idease and then they become totally desensitized and want to try and make these “fantsaies”..become realities!..i dunno..but i think that they promote violence…mary
(Looks up) I may not agree with the words you say but i’ll defend to the death your right to say them. :D
Violent crime from 1994 to 2005 has decreased almost 34% and two of the biggest games have come out in the past year(GTA san andreas and halo 2)and the violent crime hasn’t gone up in the past year and these two games have a lot of violence in them. People are always going to try to prove that video games cause violence in the real world, and these violent video games are going to get more realistic and violent, and the violent crime is not going to go up because of video games…Eric