What if a Definitive Link Was Found? A Fantasy.

This is a little related to the last post, but as a thought experiment, let's assume that violence in videogame does actually influence violence and violent crimes. Do you think we'd be able to put an age limit on games? Maybe. Let's go thru a Columbine-like incident. It's a hearing to determine if a trial is needed.

Defense: The defendent, age 15, played violent games obsessively. This contributed to his actions.

Prosecution: We know this causality exists, so let me see...a minor is in the care of an adult guardian. They should have seen, and maybe been the target of, increasingly violent behavior. If not, they're responsible for his upbringing, no matter how "independent" the kid.

Defense: Your Honor! Anyone who has children knows full well you can't monitor you children 100% of the time.

Prosecution: If you play violent video games, you need some sort of component to play them. You could take away those things so they can't play them. That doesn't require 100% guidance.

Defense: Kids find ways to access. They use their friends computers and game systems. That's not in the parents' home, so there is no control over that.

Prosecution: The other homeowners have a similar burden to bear. The ones that allow their kids and friends to play this consoles don't really care about sheltering their kids. They may believe it gives them an unnecessarily sterilized view of the world. They may assume all kids are like theirs. One thing is certain, their house, their rules.

Defense: So you agree that parents can't control their own kids?

Prosecution: Parents are guardians and teenagers are not robots. They have brains. To question is human. To act out is human. All parents have to share the responsibility of things under their own care. Parents will also have different moral values. Note that I said "different," not "better" or "worse." Letting your kids socialize is considered to be healthy in our society.

Defense: The bottom line is, he played the games, he was influenced, he killed. Cause and effect.

Prosecution: So he is not responsible in any way for his violent behaviour?

Defense: No.

Prosecution: There are many things that contribute to behavior that people don't have complete control over their own minds. Alcohol, drugs, anger, vitamin deficiences, and so on.

Defense: This is non-sequitur! We're only talking about games and violence.

Prosecution: Is it? Are you in control of your faculties when drunk? High? Malnourished? Furious?

Defense: Non-sequitur! Non-sequitur!

Prosecution: My point IS, that we hold people responsible for allowing themselves to get into those altered states. "You drink, you drive, you go to jail" as they say. "Don't let anger get the best of you." "Eat a proper breakfast." In all things that we have control over, we are held responsible.

Defense: All of those things are not videogame influences.

Prosecution: I'm pointing out that assuming the teenager can't be controlled, a fair assumption, he is of an age where he is allowed to work, learn to drive, and have some liberty in socializing. He is held responsible for his own actions in those cases. He chose to play the game. He allowed himself to get influenced. He chose to act out the game. The game didn't make him do it. There's something called morals that guide his actions, and his were flawed. He had a responsibility to obey the laws of this county, state, and country. He allowed himself to be influenced, therefore the choices were made and could have been different. No, your honor, we can't let drunk drivers go because they were drunk and therefore not responsible. We can't allow teenagers or other gameplayers to say they're not responsible. It'd become a blank-check excuse. Why'd Johnny rob that store? Games. Why'd Sara beat up that girl on YouTube? Games. Why'd Tommy kill that old lady? Games. Such a scenario is ludicrous. The defendent pulled the trigger, the game didn't. Crimes like this have happened for centuries before videogames, YouTube, and Jackass.

Judge: You have a point. Allowing videogames as an excuse will literally take the moral burden off of children. I'm not prepared for that society. I don't live in that society now, and I'm not going to foster such a wicked world. Mr. Defender, you will have to fight a pre-meditated charge. You may want to negotiate a deal. However, if you bring this before me without a detailed psychological profile before and after, you will lose. If you win, you're forever sending this kid to an asylum. Doesn't sound like you have many bargaining chips.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Even if there is a causal link, that will not excuse you from your actions.