Critics zap video games: senators urge government action to curb video-game violence
Current Events, a Weekly Reader publication, January 3, 1994
CHICAGO, Ill.--Hooded zombies attack young women using drills to drain their victims'
blood ... Two fighters kick and punch each other until the winner pulls the loser's head off with
the spinal cord still attached...
Believe it or not, you can watch these horror scenes every day in thousands of U.S.
homes. They are part of two widely popular video games--Night Trap and Mortal Kombat.
Both games were featured last month in U.S. Senate hearings on video games. The
hearings, headed by Senators Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Herbert Kohl (D-Wis.), looked at
two aspects of video games: violence in the games and how companies advertise the games to
children. In both cases, the senators found much to criticize.
Too Much Violence
Senators Lieberman and Kohl heard from a number of witnesses who testified that many
popular video games are far too violent for children. The violence of Mortal Kombat and Night
Trap, the senators were told, teaches kids to be insensitive to human suffering.
Violent video games, said California attorney general Dan Lungren, not only teach kids
"to demean and destroy" but also "have a desensitizing impact on young, impressionable minds."
After hearing testimony and seeing demonstrations of the most violent video games,
Senator Lieberman declared: "These games are no mark of a civilized society."
Lieberman and Kohl told video game companies to voluntarily cut back on violence in
video games. If you don't, Lieberman told the companies, the government will step in and do it
for you.
Both major video-game companies, Sega and Nintendo, came under criticism. But the
senators had some good words for Nintendo, which limits the amount of violence it allows in
video games.
Sega officials defended Night Trap and Mortal Kombat as games intended for older teens
and adults, not children. Sega also announced that it had established a rating system for video
games similar to movie ratings: PG for children under 13; MA-13 for players 13 and over; and
MA-17 for players aged 17 and over.
Misleading Commercial
Senator Lieberman also criticized Sega in particular for one of its TV commercials. He
said that the commercial promoted violence and targeted kids under 13. The TV commercial
shows a boy gaining the respect of his friends after winning Mortal Kombat. At the end of the
commercial, the boy angrily knocks over a tray of cookies given to him by friends now
frightened by the boy's fighting ability. The boy roars, "I said I wanted chocolate chip!"
Bill White, vice president of Sega of America, said that Sega had aired the commercial
before it established a rating system, and that the commercial was taken off the air.
Realistic Violence
Video-game players have been zapping aliens and wiping out bad guys for more than 20
years. So why have critics only now mounted a serious attack on video-game violence?
There are two reasons, say critics. The first reason is that today more violence seems to
sell more products. and Nintendo, for make versions of Mortal Kombat, but Sega's much more
violent version widely outsells Nintendo's tamer version. Sega's Mortal Kombat was, in fact, the
best-selling video game in 1993-selling more than 4 million copies.
The other reason critics are upset is that video-game violence is becoming more realistic.
In early video games, such as Pac-Man and Space Invaders, players wiped out crude cartoon
images. But today's video games feature real-looking people. In Night Trap, the characters are
played by real actors. In Mortal Kombat, the fighters are realistic animated drawings. Instead of
just wiping out a cartoon image, today's video gamers try to kill realistic-looking characters--and
that say critics, tends to teach children that human life is cheap.
Video-Game Defenders
Of course, not everyone thinks that video-game violence is harmful. Many people argue
that the concern over video-game violence, like the concern over TV violence (CE 4) is much
overblown. These people point to the fact that no studies firmly prove that people who play
violent video games tend to become more violent in real life.
Some players look upon video-game critics as (in the words of one player) "knownothing, interfering boobies."
"They're spoilsports," says Tom Jennings, a video-game player. "There are always some
people who will say that something new and exciting is wrong and dangerous--no matter what it
is."
Other players agree that some games should not be used by children. They say that most
video games are harmless fun and not as violent as Mortal Kombat.
"There are some games you want kids to stay away from," says LeeAnne McDermott,
editor of a video game magazine. "But there are a lot more games you can feel good about kids
playing."
None of this, however, persuades critics such as Senator Lieberman. He has asked the
Federal Trade Commission FTC) to investigate how video-game companies try to see their
products to kids. And he and Senator Kohl plan to hold a second series of hearings on videogame violence next month.
Source Citation
"Critics zap video games: senators urge government action to curb video-game violence."
Current Events, a Weekly Reader publication 3 Jan. 1994: 1+. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Web. 19 Dec. 2015.
Internal Citation
(“Critics”)
Firefight: should teens play violent video games?
Current Events, a Weekly Reader publication, September 5, 2011
Warning! Your favorite video games may be hazardous to your health. Call of Duty,
Halo, and other top titles arm players with weapons and send them in search of enemies. Often
the more people players gun down, the more points they earn.
The violent games are popular with teens and adults alike, but they don't score big with
everyone. Some researchers and lawmakers say the gory games make teens aggressive and
violent. They argue that young people shouldn't be allowed to play them without parental
consent.
Other researchers disagree, however. They say violent video games are just that--games-and that playing them is no more harmful than watching graphic movies or TV shows. Even the
U.S. Supreme Court justices are sticking up for the games. The nation's top judges recently
overturned a California law that barred stores from selling violent video games to minors.
What do you think? Are the intense games harmless fun or hazardous to your health?
GAME STOP
Violent video games can be just as dangerous as the assault rifles used to gun down the
enemy in Medal of Honor, some researchers say. Psychologists Douglas A. Gentile and Craig A.
Anderson have been studying the effects of the games for more than 30 years. The Iowa State
University professors recently analyzed more than 150 studies of video games and violence.
"[We] found consistent evidence that violent games increase desensitization [and] aggressive
thoughts, feelings, physiology, and behaviors and decrease helpful behaviors," they say.
Plus, the more teens play, the more the games' savage scenarios sink in, believes Melissa
Henson of the Parents Television Council. That group lobbied in support of the California law.
When teens play a game repeatedly, the scenarios in it can become a little too real, she says.
"Prolonged exposure to violent images, such as violent video games, can result in more
aggressive behavior," Henson told Current Events. "[The repetition from playing often]
reinforces certain ways of thinking, certain patterns of behavior."
Even some teens think the games are no good. Raven Laddish, 15, of California, avoids
titles such as Grand Theft Auto, in which players steal cars and shoot people. "Those types of
games don't really appeal to me," she told Wired.com. "I just don't feel that it's a good message
to send to teens."
PLAY ON
The assault on violent video games needs to stop, says psychologist Christopher
Ferguson. "Although there are some studies that find links between violent games and mild
forms of aggression, there are also studies which find no evidence for any links at all," he told
CE. The Texas A&M International University assistant professor is conducting his own longterm study on video games' effects on youth violence and bullying. "I've found ... no evidence of
harmful video game or television violence effects," he says.
Besides, the games' combative content isn't anything most teens haven't seen before,
others argue. In the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out that
even fairy tales are violent. In the original version of "Hansel and Gretel," for example, the
children kill the witch by baking her in an oven. "Certainly the books we give children to read-or read to them when they are younger--contain no shortage of gore," Scalia wrote in the Court's
decision.
When it comes down to it, teens are smart enough to know the difference between real
life and fantasy, says Evan Jones, 16. "[I get] an adrenaline rush during the game, and the need to
win, but afterwards it's just fine," the California teen told reporters. "I see violent video games as
an outlet to aggression and stress."
Source Citation
"Firefight: should teens play violent video games?" Current Events, a Weekly Reader publication
5 Sept. 2011: 7. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Dec. 2015.
Internal Citation
(“Firefight”)
The games kids play: are mature video games too violent for teens? (News Debate)
Current Events, a Weekly Reader publication, February 7, 2003
PRESS START and you become Tommy Vercetti, an ex-convict with nothing to lose.
You race down the streets of Vice City, scoring points by stealing cars, robbing banks, dealing
drugs, and killing women.
The deadly gun battles and wild car chases are all part of the action of Grand Theft Auto:
Vice City, one of the hottest video games around. But is the gory game harmless fun?
Some people aren't so sure.
Vice City and a few other popular video games have mature ratings, meaning they might
contain violent content, strong language, and nudity. M-rated games are recommended for
people 17 and up.
Even though M-rated games are meant for adults, their popularity often extends all the
way down to elementary schools. And as kids and teens clamor to play the games, the debate is
heating up over whether those kids are old enough to walk the violent streets of Vice City.
Real Life Vice?
Researchers say playing M-rated games could spark violent behavior. They say studies
have shown that people who play violent video games are more aggressive. "It increases the
likelihood youngsters are going to react to conflict with aggression instead of cooperation," Iowa
State University professor Craig Anderson told the Star Tribune.
Experts point to Eric Harris as an example. Harris was one of two teens who opened fire
in Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, in 1999, killing 13 people before shooting
himself. Harris had a modified version of Doom, an M-rated video game, on his Web site. His
version resembled the Columbine shootings--two shooters, unlimited ammunition, and victims
who couldn't shoot back.
Some people say games like Vice City should be taken off the shelves because of the way
they portray women. "I'm really offended that anybody would sell a [game] that has this kind of
violence in it, that kicking a woman to death is a game, is fun," father Howard Winkler told The
Olympian.
Just Fantasy
Many parents and teens argue that no normal kid would be transformed by a video game's
violence. They say teens are smart enough to tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
"The guns, the weapons, blowing stuff up--it's just got something you can't do in real
life," said 15-year-old Bryce Conley of Springfield, Missouri. "You might go shoot the cops in
the game, but I'm not going to go out and shoot a cop in real life," he told newspapers.
The Interactive Digital Software association says there is no conclusive link between
video games and violent behavior. They point out that as video games increase in popularity,
youth violence in the United States declines.
What do you think? Should teens be allowed to play mature video games?
Source Citation
"The games kids play: are mature video games too violent for teens? (News Debate)." Current
Events, a Weekly Reader publication 7 Feb. 2003: 3. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.
Web. 19 Dec. 2015.
Internal Citation
(“The games”)
Gaming the console: are video games bad for you? Read up on the research, and then
decide
Current Health Teens, a Weekly Reader publication, March 2012
Try this experiment. Set up your PlayStation or Xbox. Before you start playing, check
your pulse. Play for about a half hour. Then stop and take your pulse again.
It's probably faster than it was before, says John P. Murray. He's a psychology professor
and visiting scholar at the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston.
Murray has studied the effects of media on young people for more than 40 years. "Playing a fastpaced game, especially one with shooting, is like a jolt of adrenaline to your System," he says.
"And if you can feel that change your pulse, imagine what else is going on in your body and
brain that you can't see."
Scientists are debating whether playing video games can harm people. Nearly all experts
in the field see a relationship between gaming and increased aggression, sloppy schoolwork, and
even bad dreams. At the same time, some experts believe that video games can be put to good
use in the classroom and at home. Here's what you need to know before you get your game on.
Brain Science
Violent games and movies activate areas of the brain associated with aggression,
particularly the amygdalae and the limbic system. Brain scans also indicate that people may store
the violence they've seen onscreen in the brain's posterior cingulate, a part of the brain that
controls memories and emotions. (That's why people who have been victims of crimes or
soldiers who have fought in battles often relive terrible events as part of what doctors call posttraumatic stress disorder.)
So why don't you feel aggressive after playing a violent game? The effects aren't huge or
immediately noticeable by a game player, but they tend to increase over time, says professor
Craig A. Anderson, director of the Center for the Study of Violence at Iowa State University. "If
you smoke a cigarette, you don't feel cancer beginning to form," he points out.
Virtual Violence Versus Real Behavior
Still, many scientists argue that what someone does in a virtual, or make-believe, world
doesn't carry over to the real world unless that person has emotional problems to begin with.
Patrick Markey, associate professor of psychology at Villanova University, says that people who
aren't very "agreeable" (say, the kind of friend who will never give you a ride home because it's
out of his or her way) seem more affected by violent video games. "Already high levels of
aggression increase in people with personality problems," he adds.
Anderson agrees. "Violent games aren't going to turn a normal kid into a school shooter,"
he says.
Gaming to Excess
Researchers voice other concerns about video games as well. Anderson points out that
recent studies in the U.S. and Singapore indicate that nearly 8 percent of teen gamers show signs
of addiction. For instance, instead of paying attention in school, those students are instead
thinking about when they'll be able to get back to their video games. Anderson and other
scientists are also concerned that risk taking in games might lead to risk taking in real life: Can I
drive through that red light and beat that other car? a gamer might think when behind the wheel
of a real car.
In the school realm, as video games have become more and more popular, SAT scores
linked to communication skills have been declining. Though no one has proved video games
cause lower scores, researchers are pointing to this correlation: Teens are spending time playing
games that they once spent reading. Educators know that the more a student reads, the higher he
or she is likely to score on tests that measure verbal ability.
And Now the Good News
Here's a fact: Many of you out there really like playing video games and don't plan to
stop. David A., 18, of Scituate, Mass., loves playing on his Xbox, especially Call of Duty and
sports games. "It's a way of being with your friends when you're home relaxing. It's competitive
and fun, but I only do it when I have extra time," he says. So if your attitude is similar to David's,
chances are you too are part of the 92 percent of teens who aren't addicted.
Playing video games can be educational, in fact. Because many teachers are fascinated
with video game technology, they are working on ways to bring it into the classroom. Philip A.
Allen, a professor at the University of Akron, has developed a system using a Kinect camera to
help teach high school and college students engineering. Allen believes that many concepts in
science, engineering, and technology are visual and can be learned better on a gaming console
than through diagrams in a book.
"We need to work backwards," says Ali Carr-Chellman, who studies learning and gaming
at the College of Education at Penn State University. "We have to use "what teens learn from
games." For instance, if an English class is studying the novel The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
by Mark Twain, she believes it is legitimate to ask, "What have you learned from World of
Warcraft about leadership that might apply here?"
Video games can teach perseverance and teamwork. "There is an educational component
we're missing," Carr-Chellman adds. "Teens learn better when schools pay attention to student
interests."
Psychologists and educators also point to the positive aspects of some physically
interactive video games. One recent study, for instance, reported that playing the Wii Fit step and
Hula Hoop activities at the intermediate level had the same effects as a brisk walk. Still,
Arlington, Mass., 16-year-old Cady T. thinks it's actually pretty hard to get a good workout with
a game console. "Wii yoga is challenging," she says, "but it's not like I'm doing a bunch of
crunches."
To Game or Not to Game
If you brush off a friend who wants to shoot some hoops because you'd rather be gaming-you may want to take a deep breath and get outside. There are many ways to have fun, and not
all involve a game console, especially when you're playing alone, says Lindsey C., 17, of
Chestnut Ridge, N.Y. "I used to play video games, but now I want to be with my friends. There's
much more stuff to do out of the house than on a computer game," she adds.
Do You Game Too Much?
When a friend comes over you
1) stick a video game in the console.
2) hang out and talk.
3) make plans and then go out somewhere together.
4) head to the kitchen and cook something.
When it's raining you
1) stick a video game in the console.
2) turn on the TV.
3) text a friend to chat about something that happened at school.
4) read a book or a magazine.
It's Saturday morning. You
1) stick a video game in the console.
2) meet your friends at the mall.
3) go to band practice.
4) grab a basketball and head out to shoot some hoops.
Tally up the numbers next to each of your answers. If you scored 4 or above, video games
probably aren't your life. But if you chose number 1 every time, think hard about other things
you enjoy. Make a list of those things, and say good-bye to your console--for at least the rest of
the day.
Source Citation
Bernstein, Linda. "Gaming the console: are video games bad for you? Read up on the research,
and then decide." Current Health Teens, a Weekly Reader publication Mar. 2012: 13+. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Dec. 2015.
Internal Citation
(Bernstein)
Ten-country comparison suggests there’s little or no link between video games and gun
murders
By Max Fisher December 17, 2012
The search for meaning is a natural response to any tragedy, and the latest U.S. mass
shooting is eliciting questions about, among other things, the potential role of violent video
games. After all, with kids and increasingly teenagers spending so much time hammering away
at simulated shooters, is it any wonder when they pick up actual guns? Obama campaign adviser
David Axelrod lamented on Twitter, "In NFL post-game: an ad for shoot 'em up video game. All
for curbing weapons of war. But shouldn't we also quit marketing murder as a game?"
But it turns out that the data just doesn't support this connection. Looking at the world's
10 largest video game markets yields no evident, statistical correlation between video game
consumption and gun-related killings.
It's true that Americans spend billions of dollars on video games every year and that the
United States has the highest firearm murder rate in the developed world. But other countries
where video games are popular have much lower firearm-related murder rates. In fact, countries
where video game consumption is highest tend to be some of the safest countries in the world,
likely a product of the fact that developed or rich countries, where consumers can afford
expensive games, have on average much less violent crime.
Here's the data for video game spending per capita and gun-related homicides in the
world's 10 largest video game markets. The United States, as it so often does on gun-related
statistics, really stands out:
Click to enlarge. Data source: UNODC, others. (Max Fisher/Washington Post)
Of course, these comparisons assume that national video game markets are largely
uniform, with Dutch, Korean and American consumers playing the same spectrum of games.
With the possible exception of Japan, video game markets are quite global, so this is an
imperfect but generally safe assumption.
Now, if there were in fact a close correlation between video game consumption and gun
violence, then we would expect the data to trend upward. That is, we would expect that the
countries that spend the most on video games per person would also be the most violent, by
virtue of the effects of the games. Here's what the data should look like, in that case:
Click to enlarge. Data source: UNODC, others. (Max Fisher/Washington Post)
But, the data does not show this trend. Here's a linear trend line for this data. Again, with
only 10 datapoints, it's not a perfect comparison. But it's hard to ignore that this data actually
suggests a slight downward shift in violence as video game consumption increases.
Click to enlarge. Data source: UNODC, others. (Max Fisher/Washington Post)
So, what have we learned? That video game consumption, based on international data,
does not seem to correlate at all with an increase in gun violence. That countries where video
games are popular also tend to be some of the world's safest (probably because these countries
are stable and developed, not because they have video games). And we also have learned, once
again, that America's rate of firearm-related homicides is extremely high for the developed
world.
Source Citation
Fisher, Max. "Ten-country Comparison Suggests There’s Little or No Link between Video
Games and Gun Murders." The Washington Post. The Washington Post, 12 Dec. 2012.
Web. 19 Dec. 2015.
Internal Citation
(Fisher)
Why crime is falling so fast: how social media obsession, smartphone addiction, and even
violent video games, have made the world a surprisingly safe place
Maclean's, August 10, 2015
JEREMY COOK WAS just 18 when he was murdered, a crime that made national
headlines. Last month, while on a trip to London, Ont., the Brampton teen forgot his iPhone in a
taxi. Using the phone's built-in tracking feature, he later traced the device to a parking lot, where
he confronted three men in a car. When he tried to stop the vehicle from driving away by
grabbing the driver's side door, it's alleged that one of the occupants of the car gunned Cook
down. His body was found behind a strip mall. The phone was found abandoned, along with the
car. One suspect, a 23-yearold Calgary man, later drowned in Ottawa after being pursued by
police, while a second suspect, 24, turned himself in after being named in a Canada-wide arrest
warrant for the charge of second-degree murder. A third suspect has been identified but is not
cooperating with police.
The crime, which became known as the "cellphone slaying," left the nation stunned. A
group of young men had allegedly killed another young man over a mobile phone. For those who
believe that crime is out of control in this country, who harbour suspicions that growing numbers
of youth are prone to violence, and who are upset by what they see as society's dangerous
addiction to technology, Cook's tragic death confirmed their worst fears. "A cellphone!" one man
exclaimed in the London Free Press. "Society is changing." The warnings from police at the time
that phone robberies were rampant, and could lead to tragedy, only served to heighten the panic.
But away from the headlines and breaking-news hits, it turns out there's another side to
the story of youth and crime and technology, and it's one that's becoming increasingly apparent
to some who study the world of crime. It's already well-established that the story of crime in
Canada does not align with our darkest fears. Indeed, since 1991, both violent and non-violent
Criminal Code offences have been falling. Just last week, Statistics Canada released figures
showing that crime rates continued their decades-long decline. Last year, the overall crime rate,
as measured by the number of incidents reported to police per 100,000 people, hit a low not seen
since 1969.
Most of the focus is on the top line number. But it's only when the statistics are broken
down by age group that the most powerful and dramatic underlying trend becomes apparent:
Canada is fast becoming a safer place, largely because huge numbers of those aged 18 to 24, the
slice of the population historically responsible for the largest share of crimes in the country, are
staying on the right side of the law.
Consider the following, drawn from data that StatsCan provided to Maclean's about
police charges for a selection of criminal violations. Over the five-year period between 2009 and
2013, the latest year for which numbers are available, charges laid for robbery, motor vehicle
theft, aggravated assault and breaking and entering among those aged 18 to 24 dropped by
between 23 and 31 per cent, while the charges stemming from the most serious crime, homicide,
were down 29 per cent. (Because charges are more specific than incidents and reflect varying
response rates across the country, only the last five years of StatsCan data is comparable.) There
were declines among other demographic groups, as well as some increases (see sidebar) but
consistently, the biggest drop in crime was among 18- to 24-year-olds--which, as the group that
commits the most crimes in Canada, goes a long way to explaining why the country's overall
crime rate is falling so precipitously.
The overall crime drop has been described as the most important criminological
phenomenon of modern times and, in North America, Europe, Australia and other developed
countries, many common street crimes have fallen by half since the early 1990s. What's behind
the phenomenon? Theories abound, including better security--from improved locks, closedcircuit television and the widespread adoption of home alarm systems--as well as the sheer
number of police on the street and bodies in prison. But a growing number of criminologists are
also considering another factor they argue has not been given its due--namely, our obsession
with technology. "Frankly, there are more interesting things to do indoors now than going out
and nicking things," says leading British criminologist Ken Pease.
Pease, a visiting professor at several British universities who has published hundreds of
academic papers on crime and was once head of the police research group at the U.K.
government's Home Office, is a firm believer that improved security has helped to drive down
crime levels. But he argues that the staggering reach of the online world--whether through video
games, social media, access to instant and unlimited video and texting, always within arm's reach
on our smartphones--is reshaping the modern world to such an extent that it may even be
affecting crime rates. "Cyberspace becomes more interesting than meatspace," he says, referring
to a term for the physical world first coined by American-Canadian science-fiction author
William Gibson. "As our lives move from meatspace to cyberspace, the opportunity for violent
crime and acquisitive crime change and reduce in the aggregate, and that's what I think has
happened."
Pease is not alone. Other researchers, as well as those working in law enforcement,
including the president of the Canadian Police Association and those on the front lines with atrisk youth, are observing fundamental changes taking place among the most digitally connected
generation the world has ever known. It's a realm of criminology research that may only be in its
infancy, but in future, it may show that our chronic technology habit, long criticized for its
corroding influence on society, is actually keeping us safe.
THE HARMFUL EFFECTS of technology have been well-catalogued: It's been blamed
for obesity, dwindling attention spans and sedentary lifestyles. Texting and walking is hazardous,
while texting and driving can be fatal. Meanwhile, medical experts regularly warn us that
Internet addiction is breaking up families, that the glowing screens of our devices are making us
sleep-deprived, and that social media are making us depressed. And that's just the cat-loving
Internet. Anxieties about video games are even more entrenched, with the horrors of the 1999
Columbine High School massacre in Colorado--when two students, avid players of the violent
video game Doom, killed 13 teachers and classmates--still echoing in the debate over whether
virtual violence can spill over into the real world.
Yet for all the warnings, headlines and medical advice, our infatuation with technology
continues to grow, particularly among the young. One survey of 5,000 Canadian students found
99 per cent have access to the Internet outside of school, while 45 per cent use a smartphone to
go online. It's a similar story among young adults. Another study, by the Pew Research Center,
found a quarter of American teens reported that they're online "almost constantly," with the
typical teen sending 30 texts a day. And when people aren't updating their Facebook status,
they're playing games. According to the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, nearly
two-thirds of adults aged 18 to 34 play video games, while among children and teens, that figure
reaches 80 per cent.
This digital preoccupation has been the focus of a multitude of studies, by neurologists,
sociologists and psychologists. A few years ago in the U.K., criminologist Mike Sutton and
psychologist Mark Griffiths, who studies gaming and addiction, first realized the extent to which
their fields overlap. So together, they came up with what they call the crime substitution
hypothesis, which suggests that the overwhelming preoccupation with our devices may have
contributed to the crime drop.
Like many British ideas, this one turned up at the pub. Griffiths, director of the
International Gaming Research Unit at Nottingham Trent University, was having a pint with his
friend Sutton, who teaches at the same school. Griffiths had noted the rising obsession with
gaming and social media among young people; Sutton had often mentioned the inexplicable drop
in crime over roughly the same period. That conversation resulted in a research paper proposing
the crime substitution hypothesis.
The theory goes like this: Crime requires an offender with the motivation and ability to
act--to go out and "nick" things--as well as a suitable victim, and the absence of someone who
can prevent the crime from happening. This meants that if substantial numbers of young people
are inside and not on the streets, they are less likely to become either offenders or victims. These
incremental changes in lifestyle from moment to moment can add up to significant shifts in
society.
Though Griffiths admits their theory is "speculative and correlational," and still requires
much research to confirm, it does have what he calls "good faith validity"--it rings true. People
his age and his children's age have an almost pathological need to look at their phones when the
devices buzz with an incoming text, Facebook message or email. "The bottom line is, if
teenagers are so engaged in social networking or playing their computer games, they can't
physically do two activities at one time," Griffiths says. "If you've got great millions of children
in whatever jurisdiction playing online, particularly during their leisure time, this is a time they
can't possibly be engaged in crime, as well."
There is growing support for this idea. Harvard economist Lawrence Katz has suggested
that "video games and websites" may have provided such an effective distraction during the 2008
financial collapse that the crime wave predicted by conventional wisdom during hard economic
times did not materialize. Meanwhile, a 2013 study published by the American Psychological
Association found that violent crime actually went down, even as video game sales went up. The
authors chalk this up to either catharsis through simulated violence, or the simple fact that if
violent people are drawn to violent video games, they keep the streets safer by staying--and
playing--at home.
And it's not only crime; rising rates of technology use also correlate with a drop in other
undesirable behaviours. Research has suggested that the same forces have helped to discourage
young people from risky sex, drug use and aggression. The post-Millennial demographic known
as Generation Z, defined loosely as those born after 1995, is known to be better-behaved than
their older peers. As they enter their late teens, the most likely age of criminal inclination, Gen Z
youths are smoking less, graduating more, having fewer pregnancies, and committing fewer
robberies, car thefts and murders.
Sixteen-year-old Corick Henlin grew up in a tough part of west Toronto that has a steady
undercurrent of violence. He and his friends can spot gangs by their crews or their cars. But they
have no interest in that lifestyle. They spend most of their time playing video games, chatting to
their thousands of Facebook friends and texting girls--Henlin especially, his friends tease. He
plays the odd game of basketball, which saves his phone battery, he says. It's the one time when
he's not using it.
As a digital native, or "screenager" (someone who can't recall a time before the Internet),
Henlin says, "Technology is ruling our lives." Although he admits all that screen time can breed
laziness, he sees it as a useful diversion. "Before electronics, people were forced to go outside to
have fun, but that's why there were more problems on the streets," he says. "Nowadays, with
electronics, you can play, like, a fighting game on PS3. When you play games, you can cause
trouble on that. You can cause trouble and not actually get in trouble."
ONE MIGHT ASSUME that the president of the Canadian Police Association would
attribute the drop in crime to, above all, ace policing. But when Tom Stamatakis, a former police
constable in Vancouver for 19 years, is asked for his theory, one of the first things he talks about
is technology. "Perhaps, generations ago, when [young people] weren't as engaged with
technology as they are now, you'd have to go out to find entertainment, as opposed to staying in
your home and getting into Xbox or being engaged with your friends through social media," he
says. "Technology definitely plays some role in influencing youth and the kind of activities
they're involved in. If you go back to a time before cellphones and social media and game
consoles, there would be boredom and you would leave your home, be out and about in the
community with friends, looking for activities to engage in."
Those "activities" might have included common crimes of youth, such as shoplifting or
vandalism. And while those are petty crimes, they can still serve as a gateway to more serious
crimes later in life. Researchers have found that involvement in petty crimes at a young age
increases the likelihood a person will be involved in crime as an adult. Likewise, if an individual
has not participated in criminal activity by early adulthood, he's less likely to start later on. Given
the fact that the rate of youths accused of crimes under the Youth Criminal Justice Act dropped
by almost two-thirds between 2004 and 2014, that means the pool of potential criminals in the
future is also shrinking, and the crime rate is likely to decline exponentially faster.
Stamatakis believes that measures to divert young people from entering the criminal
justice system and changing demographics have also played a role. He points out that technology
has also created brand-new problems for police, such as cyberbullying and the relatively new
problem of smartphone thefts, which some police have described as reaching "epidemic" levels.
But even here, technology is helping to turn that around. The introduction of so-called "kill
switches" on smartphones, which allow owners to remotely disable their devices, contributed to a
30 per cent drop in the number of phone thefts last year, according to a recent Consumer Reports
study.
The pervasive nature of devices such as camera phones may also serve to deter crime. A
2013 research paper from the University of Pennsylvania Law School argued that mobile phones
have played a role in discouraging violent crime and, to a lesser extent, property crime, because
of the increased risk of being caught. It's easier than ever for a victim or bystander to phone 911
or record a video of an attack, the authors note in "Mobile phones and crime deterrence: an
underappreciated link," which they claim is the first study to test mobile phones' link to the crime
drop in the U.S.
Not everyone is convinced that chronic use of technology is helping to bring down crime.
The crime substitution theory put forth by Griffiths and Sutton, for one, has faced detractors.
University of Toronto criminologist Anthony Doob considers such theories "a dime a dozen,"
because there have been countless changes to society since 1991. Likewise, Simon Fraser
University criminology professor Graham Farrell isn't convinced. He's a former graduate student
of Pease's in the U.K. and a childhood friend of Sutton's. Farrell attributes most of the crime drop
to an increase in security. Since "debut crimes" such as car thefts and shoplifting have become
more difficult, young people may be less likely to start a criminal career in the first place, he
says. "That might be the stepping stone to why some violent crimes have gone down," Farrell
says. He's also skeptical that video games, social media and smartphones contributed to the
crime drop, which began in 1991, before Google and texting and before Gen Z was even born.
But while he's quick to point out that correlation is not causation, he's not totally against further
investigation to finally prove or disprove the hypothesis. "Mike [Sutton]'s been talking about it
for years," Farrell says from Vancouver. "I say, 'This is interesting. Where is the evidence?'"
His former professor Pease is considering that challenge right now. Pease has proposed
that one of his current post-doc students at the University College London take a more rigorous
look at crime and technology to see if a causal link can be identified.
In the meantime, those on the front lines working with at-risk youth are already realizing
the power of keeping youth digitally connected.
EVEN IF THE proof isn't absolute, investment in technology has worked its way into
social programs in Canada and the U.S. In June, the Federal Communications Commission
expanded its Lifeline program, or the so-called "Obamaphone," which provides low-income
Americans with subsidized phone plans. The agency plans to extend the program to broadband
Internet in recognition of the fact that web access is essential to being a hilly functioning part of
society.
Meanwhile, programs providing at-risk youths with access to mobile phones have popped
up in Vancouver, Edmonton and Toronto, funded by phone companies. Taylor-Rae Foster, a
program coordinator at the Youth Restorative Action Project in Edmonton, which has distributed
phones to 30 teens aged 17 and under, acknowledges that the devices could facilitate drug deals
or gang activity. Instead, she says they've been used by youth to find safe places to sleep and to
keep in touch with friends.
The Internet, especially Facebook, is often the only way at-risk youths can stay in touch
with their families, says Kelly Holmes, executive director of Resource Assistance for Youth in
Winnipeg, an agency that deals with street-involved youth up to age 29. The agency's 15
computers are used by roughly 20 young people a day. "The demand is so much more, and
there's so much more for them to do in making contact, Facebooking, applying for jobs and
checking out vacancies for housing," she says. "It's a pretty important tool."
In the same city, emergency physician Dr. Carolyn Snider is steering a pilot project that
tries to reduce the number of hospital visits by victims of violence, some of whom she would see
repeatedly, by connecting her patients with a support worker through technology. The youths,
typically between 14 and 24 years old and often with ties to gangs, might come in having been
beaten, stabbed or shot. They are now given a basic mobile phone they can use to text their
support workers, who can then check on their work or housing situations, as well as their health
and recovery. Connecting by mobile phone "has been very successful for us, and really an
integral part of our intervention, in a sense," Snider says, "because keeping in contact with youth
who are so vulnerable and so transient at times is a real challenge." Snider says it can be tough
convincing "higher-ups" it's worthwhile handing out phones. "As you can imagine, some of the
people are like, 'You're giving phones to these high-risk youth? What are you thinking?' But it's a
big part of (the project)."
Although official measures of the program's success won't be available until next year,
Snider says she expects to see a drop in return visits to the hospital, an increase in school
enrolment, and a decrease in involvement with the criminal justice system.
Calvin Cheng, 25, grew up in Toronto's Regent Park neighbourhood, an inner-city public
housing complex in Toronto once notorious for dangerous gangs like the Asian Assassinz. He
and a handful of friends were well aware of the gang's coming and goings. Now a paramedic,
Cheng credits his success to programs such as Pathways to Education, a national non-profit that
works to ensure high school students in low-income neighbourhoods don't drop out. And he's
equally effusive about the support of his parents, who, even though they worked for minimum
wage, sank their savings into buying Cheng a fancy computer. And that, he says, was where he
and his friends spent "pretty much all day, every day," battling it out on games like World of
Warcraft and Counter-Strike, which features a "deathmatch" mode as an option. "I guess it was
good, because they knew I wasn't getting involved in other things I shouldn't be--because I was
at home playing video games every day," he says.
Matthew Johnson, director of education for the Ottawa-based digital media literacy nonprofit MediaSmarts, says we are witnessing a bundle of social changes that do include crime
reduction, as well as an increase in sedentary behaviour, and the general sense that it's safer to be
indoors.
But while it's easy to worry about kids these days being attached to their devices, and the
hand-wringing about video games and Facebook is likely to continue, it's clear the digital
revolution has brought enormous positive changes, often in unexpected ways. Society will
continue to grapple with social ills such as crime and addiction, but, with access to new
information, ideas and distractions, it's possible our very dependence on technology has actually
made the world a little safer.
Not doing the crime
Across five diverse types of crime, the biggest declines in the rate of police charges have
been in the 18-to-24 age group, which is responsible for much of the criminal activity in the
country.There's a surprising outlier to the general drop in crime
Crime may be down among the young, but that's not the case with their elders. Charges
laid against Canadians in the 55-to-64 and 65-to-89 age groups actually increased between 2009
and 2013 for crimes such as homicide, breaking and entering, robbery, vehicle theft and
aggravated assault. This appears to follow an international trend among countries with aging
populations In the U.K., eight men between the ages of 48 and 76 were charged in a massive
jewellery heist from Hatton Garden in London's diamond district this spring. Jewels and cash
valued at millions of pounds were stolen from a vault, according to British media, which has
dubbed the accused men "Dad's Army." Meanwhile, in Japan, police took more action against
elderly people than teens for the first time since data collection by age group began in 1989, the
Japan Times reported last week. Japan's juvenile crime rate was down 15 per cent during the first
six months of 2014, compared to 2013, due to a drop in theft and violent crimes, while the
number of crimes among the elderly rose almost 11 per cent. It's important to remember that
even if there's a big jump in the crime rate for seniors, the actual number of charges are small.
For example, the rate for aggravated assault among those aged 65 to 89 jumped by nearly 40 per
cent, but that reflected an increase of only 10 additional charges.
Still, it's not clear why this is happening. In South Korea, where a similar trend exists, the
rise in crime has been attributed to "poverty, illness and loneliness" among seniors. At the same
time, though, today's seniors are more physically active than in generations past, allowing those
inclined to commit crime to keep it up. It's also possible some are the criminals responsible for
the crime wave of the 1970s, only they're now 40 years older.
Source Citation
McKnight, Zoe. "Why crime is falling so fast: how social media obsession, smartphone
addiction, and even violent video games, have made the world a surprisingly safe place."
Maclean's 10 Aug. 2015: 38+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Dec. 2015.
Internal Citation
(McKnight)