Video Games on Trial

What you are about to read may seem ridiculous, ludicrous, and even fake.  But let me assure you, the witnesses and cases cited are all real.  Don't believe me?  Click the links!  And no, I'm not joking.  I'm being serious.  Honestly.  Seriously - click the links.  No way could I fake all that!

The State v. Video Games

Transcript of case against Video Games - accomplice liability for crimes of violence.


 
COURT:  Good morning.  The State v. Video Games is now in session.  Video Games, you are charged with accomplice liability for various crimes of violence having been committed within the last few years.  How do you plead?
VIDEO GAMES:  Not guilty, Your Honor.
THE COURT:  The State must demonstrate that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order for the charges to stand.  The State?
THE STATE:  Thank you, Your Honor.  Now, we would like to begin by presenting Daniel Petric as a witness.  Mr. Petric has already been convicted of murder and, through his testimony, will demonstrate that Video Games served as an accomplice to his crime.
MR. PETRIC:  I was found guilty for the murder of my mother, committed in 2007.  I attempted to also murder my father but he survived the gunshot.
COURT:  Mr. Petric, why would you do such a thing?
MR. PETRIC:  My parents took away Halo 3 from me.  I was so obsessed with the game that I decided to headshot them and get my game back.
COURT:  I understand that your attorney attempted, and failed, to get you off by reason of insanity.  Could you elaborate?
THE STATE:  Your Honor, if I may.  You see, Video Games here convinced Mr. Petric that his parents would actually respawn after Mr. Petric headshotted them.  Although the insanity defense ultimately did not save Mr. Petric from serving life in prison, Judge James Burge acknowledged that Mr. Petric, when he committed the crime, truly did not believe that his parents would stay dead forever and that but for Video Games, Mr. Petric would not have committed the crime.
COURT:  The State, in order to prove liability, your case for Video Games' accomplice liability must rest on the premise that Video Games had (1) the purpose to assist or further Mr. Petric's actions, and purposely and knowingly causing the death of Mrs. Petric, and (2) engaged in known efforts or encouragement of Mr. Petric's crime.
THE STATE:  Yes, Your Honor.  Video Games knows that it is addictive, yet knowingly presents its addictive nature to players.  The game Halo 3 encourages players to kill as many aliens as possible, using all sorts of guns, rocket launchers, grenades, and even vehicles to squish their opponents.  In addition, on XBox Live, players play on teams and, generally speaking, whoever kills the most players wins.  This encourages an enormous amount of violence - and poor Mr. Petric had been exposed to this amount of addictive violence for years.  In addition, Video Games encouraged him to commit his crime - they misled Mr. Petric by insisting that there is no such thing as real death.  Mr. Petric was incorrectly convinced that once you kill a person, they will respawn in, at most, two minutes.  Video games clearly influenced Mr. Petric to commit this violent crime.
VIDEO GAMES:  Mr. Petric, how old were you at the time you committed the crime?
MR. PETRIC:  Uhh, 16, sir.
VIDEO GAMES:  And you tried to plead insanity by reason of addiction to video games?  But that defense failed, did it not?
MR. PETRIC:  Yes, sir.
VIDEO GAMES:  As a 16-year-old teenager, you had no idea that people did not respawn in real life?  I find that hard to believe.  You were clearly not insane, as that defense was rejected.  You watch the news, right?  You watch movies?  You hear of people dying?  Surely as a teenager, who has lived on this earth for 16 years, you must have known that when people die, they die?
MR. PETRIC:  No, sir.  Your kind convinced me that people respawn in real life.  Even the judge agreed with me!
VIDEO GAMES:  Well, millions of people play my kind.  Yet I don't see those millions of people committing crimes and killing people because they believe they will respawn!  Your friends must play Halo 3, and I bet I can ask any teenager on the street today and they will tell me that people do not respawn.  You committed a crime and you were just using video games as a scapegoat!
THE STATE:  Well, how do you explain Devin Moore?  After playing GTA, he went on a cop killing spree!
VIDEO GAMES:  As I understand it, a case was brought against GTA for complicity!  We all know how that turned out for the attorney who brought the case, Jack Thompson... it was mostly fail.
THE STATE:  (sputtering)  Well, what about Cody Posey?  But for his playing GTA, he would not have killed his family!
VIDEO GAMES:  You are forgetting an important part of that case - Posey was abused for years by his father and stepmother.  There were clearly other factors that influenced his crime, but the way the story is told, it sounds like GTA was the sole reason for the crime!
THE STATE:  (more sputtering)
VIDEO GAMES:  Your Honor, I would like to state my defense.
THE COURT:  Go ahead.
VIDEO GAMES:  There is little conclusive evidence shown that there is a positive correlation between video games and violence.  There is a lot of speculation and assumption, but in reality, arguing that video games cause violence is like arguing that watching the movie 300 encourages people to act like Leonidas and kill the Spartans.
THE STATE:  Video games are different, though.  In a movie, the audience is sitting back and watching, yes, but the audience is not actually participating in the violent actions of the characters.  With a video game, the player is the one pulling the trigger and committing the acts of violence.
VIDEO GAMES:  That may be so, but video games are not reality, and anyone who truly does not understand that is not of sound mind.  Mr. Petric was not insane and we find it difficult to believe that any sane person can become so absorbed in a game that they cannot tell the difference between the virtual world and the real world. 
THE STATE:  We dispute your assertion that there is no evidence of video games leading to violence.  In fact, leading researchers have asserted that video games are strongly correlated with violence. 
VIDEO GAMES:  Of those studies, there may be a correlation found - but a correlation is not causation.  If video games really were such a source of violent tendencies, then we would expect the vast majority of video game players to be criminals.  But in actuality, we hear of very few crimes that are committed by people who play video games.  It is more believable to argue that those who commit violent crimes do play video games, yes, but perhaps they already had the tendency to be violent, regardless of whether they played video games.  In many cases, such as with Mr. Posey, there were other factors that contributed to his acts of violence.  The fact that someone who commits a violent crime plays video games does not mean that they committed a crime because of that game - perhaps they play video games because they are violent, or perhaps it is merely a coincidence.
THE STATE:  That may be so, but many people who play video games are younger and more easily molded by their experiences.  Because so many teenagers are playing these games, they are more likely to be influenced by the video games!  Thus, you are clearly an accomplice to these grisly crimes by aiding and abetting the murders!
VIDEO GAMES:  Video games come with ratings - the Halo and Grant Theft Auto franchises are rated M for Mature, meaning that they are meant for players ages 17 and over.  We understand that some games could potentially, but not likely, have an influence on players, which is why the ESRB created these ratings.  If you are under 17 years old, you should not even be playing these games.  We have done our part, and the fact of the matter is that these are teenagers who are playing games that they should not be playing - so whoever is responsible for these teens should be making sure that they are not exposed to things that they should not be exposed to!
THE COURT:  (yawning)  Any closing remarks?
THE STATE:  We close by asserting again that Video Games are liable as an accomplice to the violent crimes committed by their users.  They encourage and foster an environment of violence and are addictive in nature, warping reality until the players are no longer certain what is real and what is not.  Players are encouraged that violence is okay, resulting in increased aggression and lack of apathy.
VIDEO GAMES:  We close by asserting that we are not responsible for the acts of these individuals who so happen to play video games.  We do not encourage violence because we, and the players, understand that video games are not reality - we do not expect the reasonable person to be confused between the virtual world and reality.  We also have ratings on games to warn people of the violent nature of the game, and it is up to parents and guardians to ensure that their children are not playing games that are unsuitable for them.  We conclude by asserting that we are not responsible for the violent crimes committed by some of our users.
THE COURT:  We will now break for recess.  Following the break, you, the jury will have to answer this question: do you find that The State has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Video Games are liable for being the accomplice of these violent criminals?


*Disclaimer: This is in no way accurate of how court proceedings would happen in real life!  This transcript was merely a product of my own imagination and a way for me to present both sides of the issue.