|
|
| Protect our Prisoners, but not our kids... |
| 12.02.04 (8:32 am) |
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - Missouri's most violent criminals can no longer play video games that simulate murders, carjackings and the killing of police officers, a decision reached after prison officials were told about the content.
"We didn't closely review these," Dave Dormire, superintendent of the Jefferson City Correctional Center, told The Kansas City Star. "We were told these games had more like cartoon violence."
The Star reported Thursday the state's new maximum-security prison pulled dozens of violent Sony PlayStation 2 (news - web sites) games from its recreation center on Wednesday, after officials were alerted to their content by a reporter. Inmates had been using them for months.
In fact, the prison's PlayStation offerings included one of the most violent games on the market, "Hitman: Contracts," in which players use everything from meat hooks to silencer-equipped pistols to carry out brutal contract killings.
In all, 35 of the facility's more than 80 games were removed. Others remain, including science fiction and sports games.
The games were paid for from inmates' purchases — mostly of snacks — at the prison canteen. The canteen generates up to $20,000 monthly and a committee of corrections officials, prison staffers and several inmates decides how to spend it.
Much of the cash is used for weightlifting and exercise equipment. Video games are a new purchase in Jefferson City; prison officials say other facilities have done the same, though it doesn't appear to be the norm.
"It has a good effect on helping us run the prison and make sure they're busy and not trying to work on ways to escape or harm others," Dormire said. "That's kind of our bottom line — public safety."
Some corrections experts were shocked that violent games would be allowed in the hands of violent prisoners.
Jacqueline Helfgott, a professor at Seattle University who has studied the effects of violent movies and video games on criminal behavior, said such media can have a negative effect on inmates.
"You get people in a maximum-security prison who have already gone over the line," she said. "They're not afraid to engage in violence, unlike the nerd sitting in front of his computer."
Jim Houston, a professor of criminal justice at Grand Valley State University in Grand Rapids, Mich., agreed.
"These kinds of games reinforce a criminal lifestyle that caused them to get into prison in the first place," Houston said.
Mary Still, a spokeswoman for Gov. Bob Holden, said the governor believes violent games are inappropriate for prisoners. The governor does not oppose nonviolent video games for inmates, but says they should not come at taxpayer expense.
The $128 million Jefferson City Correctional Center opened in September to replace the 170-year-old Missouri State Penitentiary. It has 1,996 beds.
Funny isn't it, the fact that no one seems to disagree that such violent games are bad for prisoners but how everyone bends over backwards to market this sludge to children?
The irony here is that our inmates are now better protected than our children in many regards. To bad that as a society we worry more about convicted felons than innocent children.
What is even more ironic is that even while posting this I'm fairly certain I'll get a long 'free speech" diatribe from someone on the left, claiming that my desire is to "censor" these types of games because I'm some manner of "fascist". Funny, no one on the left seemed all that upset when Camel was forced to stop using a cartoon of a camel in it's cigarette advertising because that might appeal to children. No one on the left seems to care much at all about censorship like that, but they get awfully upset whenever anyone has the temerity to suggest that violent video games or music lyrics are likely to be every bit as harmful, if not more so, to children than smoking.
But then I guess the left never runs out of double standards.
|
|
|
|
| |
posted by: gesn
post date: 12.02.04 (9:50 am)
'No one on the left seems to care' .... just a bit of a broad generalization isn't it? How many people on the left did you ask? As deciding what the ‘left’ would have to say about your opinion, don’t you think you allow someone to say something before you respond to them?
As long as we're making broad generalizations, I thought the Right supported free market economies. If there wasn’t such a strong demand for this type of game in the general public, then they wouldn’t be released at the current volume.
The market will respond to the majority. Since violent video games continue to be marketed to children, I would suggest that is because it’s successful – therefore I would argue that is what people really want.
If you want to change the market, you simply need to convince enough people that marketing violence to children isn’t a good idea. The market will respond accordingly.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.02.04 (10:01 am)
Reply to: gesn
"'No one on the left seems to care' .... just a bit of a broad generalization isn't it? How many people on the left did you ask? "
Hundreds actually, and the response is always the same. Whenever we started discussing the notion that violent video games or violent, sexual charged lyrics in music were bad for kids, the vehement responses we recieved from anyone left of center were immediate and quite nasty, all of which supported the notion that this sort of sludge should be marketed to children freely and that the only line of defense in this regard should be parents. If my kids listened to gangsta rap that was my fault, as a parent, apparently. So much for the "It takes a Village" philosophy, but of course while I can monitor what my children listen to at home I can't be with them 24/7, nor do I have any control over what their friends listen to or watch, or what they are exposed to as a result.
So while it may be a bit of a generalization to say that "no one" on the left cares, I don't think it is an overly broad generalization to say that very few seem too care.
"I thought the Right supported free market economies. If there wasn’t such a strong demand for this type of game in the general public, then they wouldn’t be released at the current volume"
I support free markets, to an extent, but I don't support the notion that all products should be marketed to children. I don't think it would be right, for example, to market Uzi's to kids. Do you? Probably not. We have to use a bit of common sense in what we market towards children, not only for the good of our own children but out of self interest as well. It is these neglected kids that grow up immersed in the sewage put out by popular culture that cause a lot of societal problems as teens and later as adults. So as a society we do have an interest in doing something about the problem, wouldn't you agree? Sure, you don't want little Johnny smoking a camel, but it seems strange that while you would probably readily support the notion that Camel cigarette company shouldn't be marketing it's products to kids you seem equally adamant that games that depict brutal killings, even killing police officers should. Doesn't that seem a bit.. well, ironic to you?
posted by: gesn
post date: 12.02.04 (11:05 am)
Reply to: stepdad
Hmmm ... I don't think I said that I support marketing violence to children. As a matter of fact, I think it's vile. What I said was so long as there is a market, then the practice would continue.
There are only two solutions I see to this problem – either legislate it away or educate enough people to see the harm in it so that the market corrects itself. I oppose legislating morality on the grounds that it (a) doesn’t work (look at the War against drugs as a shining example) and (b) opens the can of worms over whose morality should be the standard. That kills the first idea. So, the only viable solution I see is education.
Unfortunately, as a society, we (and by the I mean the public in general – not just one or the other side of the aisle) tend to tackle problems by using the government to impose restrictions on us. Since these restrictions tend to be unpopular, they often do not have the desired result.
And BTW, I disapprove of the legislated restrictions on cigarette and alcohol advertising as well. Children still smoke and drink, so it’s apparently not working all that well.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.02.04 (11:22 am)
Reply to: gesn
"Hmmm ... I don't think I said that I support marketing violence to children. As a matter of fact, I think it's vile. What I said was so long as there is a market, then the practice would continue."
So the question becomes, who creates the market?
"There are only two solutions I see to this problem – either legislate it away or educate enough people to see the harm in it so that the market corrects itself. I oppose legislating morality on the grounds that it (a) doesn’t work (look at the War against drugs as a shining example) and (b) opens the can of worms over whose morality should be the standard. "
I've always been a firm believer i the notion that anytime you involve government in almost anything you cause more problems than you solve. Classic examples of course being such things as Welfare or Social Security. Both noble ideas that have failed miserably thanks to government involvement.
"And BTW, I disapprove of the legislated restrictions on cigarette and alcohol advertising as well. Children still smoke and drink, so it’s apparently not working all that well."
So on this point we can agree, which makes you somewhat unique for those that subscribe to a more liberal viewpoint.
posted by: gesn
post date: 12.03.04 (8:45 am)
Reply to: stepdad
We're the market. Businesses may create a market but we comprise the market and therefore collectively determine its direction. In many cases, we choose not to allow the market exist by not participating. As groups or individuals, we may say we oppose violent video games but so long as we continue to buy them for ourselves and our children, then the market responds to what we really want - violent video games.
The market responds to our actions not to what we say about it - why else is it so easy to buy drugs or a whore? Does that make us hypocrites? Possibly.
|
|
|
