Video games made him do it. At least that’s what the lawyer of a Texas boy is claiming.
Jury selection started last Monday for the trial of the boy who killed his friend, 13-year-old Jonathan Hogan, shooting him in the head and chest after a day of playing violent video games. The name of the child, also 13, is being kept confidential, and his lawyer said he merely acted out what he saw in the games. However, law enforcement authorities contend the boy knew the difference between video games and reality, and he is being charged with juvenile murder.
Besides being tragic, the event also adds more fuel to the age-old video game controversy. Since video games were invented, consumers and producers have been debating whether game manufacturers should be allowed to produce violent images, whether this type of violence has a significant effect on children’s behavior and whether the gaming industry’s self-imposed rating system works.
Though the industry should be commended for it’s current rating system, it’s true that game producers could do more to educate parents on which games might not be suitable for children. Vendors should also monitor the ages of buyers more closely. Right now, participation in the rating system is voluntary for both stores and manufacturers. According to a Federal Trade Commission study released in December, 78 percent of stores sold unaccompanied minors games rated for mature audiences only.
The Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act of 2002, introduced by Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif, earlier this month, would officially ban certain violent games from being sold to unaccompanied minors, imposing penalties of up to $5,000 and 90 days in jail for vendors’ noncompliance. The blacklisted games would include those depicting sex and violence, such as Grand Theft Auto 3, which includes prostitution, murder and car-jacking.
Changes like these might be a step in the right direction, but in most cases the real culprit isn’t video games — instead, the blame should be laid on a myriad other circumstances, including lack of parental supervision. Rating systems and other regulations aren’t effective unless parents take an active role in monitoring what their children watch and play.
Parents should also make sure guns and other weapons are inaccessible to their kids. Hogan’s family filed a civil suit against the Texas suspect’s mother for negligence, since she allegedly kept a loaded gun within reach of her child — the gun that killed Hogan.
In a world where we’re constantly searching for answers, it’s also important to remember that a video game can’t “make” anyone do anything. I’m not in the minority when I say my brothers, sister and I spent entire summers playing video games — some of them violent — and never felt the urge to shoot anyone. A normal child knows the difference between annihilating a video game character and actual murder. It’s likely Hogan’s shooter — or any child who commits violence — has mental problems extending far beyond the realm of video game overdose.
The FTC is preparing a report on both media violence and minors’ access to this content, but before we assign blame to the media, we should look a little closer to home. Parents can’t be with their children every second of the day, but they should be involved enough to determine whether their kids are mentally stable and mature enough to play certain games.
More stringent regulations on video game sales may help curb a small amount of youth violence, but we shouldn’t use games as an excuse for violent behavior or expect regulations to be a cure-all.