digital.goth.geek

Today I read in The Metro newspaper about the parents of a son who was murdered calling for the ban of the Playstation 2 game Manhunt, because they believe that the game inspired their son’s murderer.

While I commiserate with their loss, I can’t help but think that their response is anything other than a knee–jerk reaction. The murderer, a 17–year old teenager, obviously has deep-seated personality issues, one of which is unlikely to be the belief that computer games reflect real–life.

I detest this sort of impulsive, unmeditated reactionary attitude from people looking for a quick answer to, and someone or something to blame for, society’s ills. It solves nothing, and causes much grief of its own, which I’m sure the world could do without.

In the ’70s and ’80s TV was to blame; in the 80s and 90s it was music; in the ’90s and recent decade it’s the turn of computer games and the Internet. So who, or what, was to blame for the hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of violent deaths that took place before electricity? Games, TV and the Internet certainly weren’t. Music was around, but a very unlikely candidate. There are one possible answer to this: people. People kill people, it’s that simple, but some are unable, or unwilling, to accept this and will always try to look for a “real” reason.

ITV news writes:

Mrs Pakeerah said: “I think that I heard some of Warren’s friends say that he was obsessed by this game. If he was obsessed by it, it could well be that the boundaries for him became quite hazy.”

She thinks she heard? If he was obsessed? It could be? Come on woman, we need hard facts not self–indulgent hearsay. She then went on to say:

“I can’t believe that this sort of material is allowed in a society where anarchy is not that far removed. It should not be available and it should not be available to young people.”

Violence has been a feature of human life as far as history records, computer games aren’t any more of an influence than any other factor of everyday life, like jelly and ice cream, Friends, mountain bikes, Harry Potter, frisbees and Boyzone.

In fact, the article in This Is Leicenstershire says that:

“Stefan was playing computer games at home with his uncle when Leblanc called”.

So, the murderer wasn’t playing a computer game, but the victim was? In fact, each of the articles regarding this matter all but one fail to link the killer to computer games at all, never mind the Manhunt game specifically, totalvideogames.com being the only source to report:

“Seventeen year-old Warren Le Blanc often played the controversial and violent game with his friend, 14 year old Stefan Pakeerah.”

The Guardian reports that Mrs Pakeerah said:

“This game was seized by the police as evidence. A report was done on the game and it was quite horrific.”

Ok, so a copy of this game was recovered. From where? From Leblanc’s home, or from the Pakeerah residence? This small point is conspicuous by its absence.

The Scotsman reports:

‘Stefan’s father, Patrick, a civil servant, added: “They were playing a game called Manhunt. The way Warren committed the murder this is how the game is set out, killing people using weapons like hammers and knives.”‘

Now, I’m no lawyer or psychologist, but it sounds like this man, the parent of the murdered boy, knew not only of the game’s existence, but also its content. Perhaps his son owned the game, and played it in front of the parents. The father adds:

“I don’t play these games but if they are influencing kids to go out and kill people then you don’t want them on the shelves.”

He doesn’t play them? Did his son? If so, what was a 14–year old boy doing with a computer game with an 18 certificate? Surely his parents should have removed the item if this was the case, especially as they consider it “evil”.

The Scotsman also adds:

“Peter Joyce QC prosecuting told the court that the defendant had planned to rob his younger friend to help repay a drugs debt.”

So he planned to rob, but not kill, his friend? What did he think hitting someone on the back of the head with a hammer would do? Make him say “oh, here, have my money!”? No, if this kid had played this game, he would know that such a blow would result in a serious head trauma.

Oh, and the ever–sensationalistic Mirror, comes out with:

‘Stefan’s uncle, airline worker Gary Broomes, 39, likened the games to child pornography, saying people who watched it were “more likely to commit acts of paedophilia”. He said: “This game is about taking a life and yet it is legal”.’

Apart from the ridiculously long headline and the tabloid staple use of the word “yesterday” as if it’s some sort of placebo for the histrionic journalism endemic to these tabloid rags, this is reporting on the lowest level. I wonder if these people get paid a bounty for each use of the word “paedophile” and its variants.

So, the upshot is: after an obviously distressing event, one couple has determined that a video game is indirectly — or perhaps even directly — to blame for their son’s death, without any evidence or proof. Thank you Nanny State, where would we be without you?

We should all succumb to the will of the feeble–minded thought police and be done with it. I’m sure life would be a lot easier in a straight–jacket, and I think I’ve done all I can with my own mind.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 29th, 2004 at 11:24 am and is filed under Uncategorised. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.