UK Researcher Wants Parents Arrested for Buying Kids Violent Games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Merciful God, save us from @#$%ing crusaders. Amen.

"Doctor" Robinson, if I, in my judgement as a parent, decide that my 16-year old is ready to play Skyrim, that is absolutely none of your business.

While this is a bit extreme its nice to finally see someone pick up on the fact that parents are the ones in the end who are responsible for keeping R and M rated games away from their kids. Jail Perhaps not. Fines..... might work.

Does he support arresting parents who take their kid to see "The Dark Knight Rises"?

If not, he's a bloody hypocrite.

The whole point of a rating system is to help parents choose what their kids are ready for. Some kids are ready to play M games at 10 years old. God dammit I hate these people so much.

Ratings systems are nothing but arbitrary bullshit anyway. Why would I be simply unable to hear "Shit" as an 11 year old without turning out mentally broken, but the moment I hit 12 I'm perfectly fine? Why does the lack of blood bring "Tom and Jerry" a U/PG rating when the inclusion of blood would no doubt make that incredibly violent (and awesome) cartoon an 18/MA?

I agree there should be something in place to prevent adults buying adult games for their children. In my experience, there's nothing worse than having to serve a parent with their kid as they buy the latest COD game, when you know full well it is for the kid, but the parent just doesn't give a shit.

What is wrong with parents buying games for their kids when they think they can handle it? I have always said 3 things about ratings.

1: If it's not meant for a child, don't complain about when your child plays it, take it away from them.
2: If you buy it for your child, you take responsibility for what your child sees so be active in the media they enjoy.
3: If you want to buy it for your child, it is entirely possible.

Why fine and prosecute parents for this? It is their decision how to raise their child. We want responsibility to lie with the parents. How does prosecuting them give them responsibility? All it does is take it away because now they are unable to buy the games. You are not responsible when you drive below the speed limit, you are just following the law. That's not responsibility that not doing what is illegal.

This is a stupid idea and would basically mean that everyone here on this forum would have had their parents fined at least once in the past. Because I believe for not a single fucking second everyone on this forum followed the PEGI ratings. Hypocrites.

Brilliant. If telling somebody your side of an argument doesn't convince them you're right, make it illegal for them to disagree with you.

I didn't know they could give out a PhD in douchebaggery, but if anybody deserves it, Dr. Nick Robinson certainly does.

More or less agree. I remember following the Columbine shooting people were trying to blame video games. I said then and I say now that if video games had been found to be responsible, in any way, for the incident and the parents bought said games for these kids, the parents should be serving time right along with their kids.

This doctor, however, seems to be taking it a step too far.

Iszfury:

snip

A fine is.... well, fine.

Enforcing it would be a bitch but that's not the point. You allude to the possible ramifications of breeching the legislation being a fine and you've already told people how seriously you're taking the certification.

And that's the issue at the minute, parents don't take the certificates seriously because "they're just games". You put up signs saying "giving adult certificated games to minors could result in a fine" and right off the bat the parents think "Oh, maybe I shouldn't get 'modern massacre 7' for little Timmy afterall..."

It's more about getting the message across to parents that the certificates matter.

Abandon4093:

Iszfury:

snip

A fine is.... well, fine.

Enforcing it would be a bitch but that's not the point. You allude to the possible ramifications of breeching the legislation being a fine and you've already told people how seriously you're taking the certification.

And that's the issue at the minute, parents don't take the certificates seriously because "they're just games". You put up signs saying "giving adult certificated games to minors could result in a fine" and right off the bat the parents think "Oh, maybe I shouldn't get 'modern massacre 7' for little Timmy afterall..."

It's more about getting the message across to parents that the certificates matter.

As they should, but I don't think we shouldn't impose legal ramifications for the consumption of media regardless, as I indicated in the second paragraph of my...really large post. I find that barring an artistic medium to children based on what's already an extremely arbitrary rating system serves as a developmental burden. There shouldn't be a "legal playing age" required to play DX:HR, or Skyrim, or ME2. It's silly. I'm under 17, and have probably broken the legal limit several times regardless, and I figure I'm better for it. They served as an excellent emotional and intellectual outlet, and launched me into a plethora of technical hobbies (3D art, Coding, etc).

Point condensed, it's ageist, unfair, censorship, and I almost feels like it condescends a specific youth demographic big time. There are plenty of 13-17 year olds perfectly capable of handling mature content. Hell, most kids are having sex and shooting up before their adult years regardless, (USA), and we think inappropriate media is the largest roadblock in stable emotional development? Naw.

Just on a side note, I think that more games need to include optional censorship as well. There are some games out there that I'm confident i'd like the gameplay, but the excessive gore puts me off. A good example of this was in Brutal Legend. I really liked the game and enjoyed it when i played with gore switched off, but as soon as I tried switching it on It became repulsive and I didn't want to play. This could probably help the issue as well.

This is just wrong on so many levels; first off it assumes that parents don't know their own child well enough to be able to judge whether they're mature enough (or not) to deal with the concept of the game. Second, it's always more than a little creepy when the government decides what's good for you; 'innapropriate' seems an awful flexible word to me.

Yes it's true that there are many children out there playing games that are probably too mature for them to process (I mean you still hear about the nine year olds ploughing through people on GTA), but this is -not- a good way to try and stabilise everything. Hell, if you wanted to do some real good, try your best to promote discussion within the family, for parents to get to know their children well so they have an idea of what their kids are ready, or not, for. And for some reason I think that it could be done nicely without making something an imprisonable offence. The other thing the government could do would be to actually educate people about the age rating system, tell people what sort of things you can expect under each band and explain to people why it's in place. Now I get that this wouldn't work 100% of the time, but surely it's better than trying to criminalise people?

I am currently reading a book that describes someone taking a bag filled with glass being pulled over a person's face and kneaded while the victim screams in agony and bleeds to death as the torturer takes perverse pleasure in the act. A book that could be bought and read by an 8 year old without anyone complaining.

Would someone seriously pound some sense into these people? Seriously, how does this level of stupidity still fly in today's society?

I'm of the opinion that the parents should be punished if, and only if, they buy the game for their child and their child acts in a violent manner that would get said child punished. The mere purchase of a game for a child that is underage should not be a crime, it is only if said purchase leads to a crime that there should be punishment for the parents.

Basically if you are a parent and feel your child can handle the content of a specific video game you should have that freedom. However, if your child acts out the content of that video game in real life not only should the child be punished by you should be as well.

Iszfury:

Abandon4093:

Iszfury:

snip

A fine is.... well, fine.

Enforcing it would be a bitch but that's not the point. You allude to the possible ramifications of breeching the legislation being a fine and you've already told people how seriously you're taking the certification.

And that's the issue at the minute, parents don't take the certificates seriously because "they're just games". You put up signs saying "giving adult certificated games to minors could result in a fine" and right off the bat the parents think "Oh, maybe I shouldn't get 'modern massacre 7' for little Timmy afterall..."

It's more about getting the message across to parents that the certificates matter.

As they should, but I don't think we shouldn't impose legal ramifications for the consumption of media regardless, as I indicated in the second paragraph of my...really large post. I find that barring an artistic medium to children based on what's already an extremely arbitrary rating system serves as a developmental burden. There shouldn't be a "legal playing age" required to play DX:HR, or Skyrim, or ME2. It's silly. I'm under 17, and have probably broken the legal limit several times regardless, and I figure I'm better for it. They served as an excellent emotional and intellectual outlet, and launched me into a plethora of technical hobbies (3D art, Coding, etc).

Point condensed, it's ageist, unfair, censorship, and I almost feels like it condescends a specific youth demographic big time. There are plenty of 13-17 year olds perfectly capable of handling mature content. Hell, most kids are having sex and shooting up before their adult years regardless, (USA), and we think inappropriate media is the largest roadblock in stable emotional development? Naw.

It's not like I can argue that I seriously buy into the idea that an kind of medium can have a lasting psychological impact on a child, regardless of it's content.

I'd been watching 18cert movies since I was a nipper, same goes for games too. Desensitisation.... probably. Any kind of psychological damage or effect on mental development... I highly doubt it. Infact I attributed my own maturity at a young age to the sheer amount of adult media I'd consumed.

Problem being, I can only speak for myself. Just like you can only speak for yourself.

It's entirely possible that it could have some negative effects on certain developing minds, I don't really have any idea how that could be adequately tested though.

I do however know that I absolutely hate dealing with whiny immature kids online in shooters etc.

It's almost 70 years later, England won the war, and yet somehow, the fascists are back in control.

Margaret Thatcher would be proud. She'd also be a walking undead abomination, but that's besides the point.

Terrible idea. While many parents are lazy, this takes away the decision of whether or not a game is appropriate for an individual minor AWAY from the parents. You know your 16 year old is very mature and reasonable and decide he's ready for GTA? NOPE, government knows your kid better than you do.

And how would they even enforce this? The government would have to monitor what games people buy and play.

Yea yea I know everyone thinks this guy is a moron. But we also know lazy parents are the first ones to argue that violent games are damaging to children, when they refuse to even look at what they are buying their kids.

So, anyone got a better idea on how to punish them, or at least make them aware? I understand this guy is trying to get to the root of the problem, but this is not the way. I mean, finding out if kids are playing them in the first place is kind of intrusive in what goes on in people's households, and that's something we don't want isn't it.

Jodah:
I'm of the opinion that the parents should be punished if, and only if, they buy the game for their child and their child acts in a violent manner that would get said child punished. The mere purchase of a game for a child that is underage should not be a crime, it is only if said purchase leads to a crime that there should be punishment for the parents.

Basically if you are a parent and feel your child can handle the content of a specific video game you should have that freedom. However, if your child acts out the content of that video game in real life not only should the child be punished by you should be as well.

But how do you prove, beyond any doubt, that the game was behind the crime? Kids, if they possibly can, will blame someone else for their actions. Christ, even adults do that. If a kid steals, it is more likely it was the company he was with that influenced the act, not GTA. If he beats up someone, I highly doubt it was because he played Final Fantasy XIII when he was 15 or Skyrim, when he was 17.

I don't believe violent games lead to violence. I believe there are crazy people out there, who will do crazy shit regardless of the entertainment they had. There are thousands of criminals in the world who have committed crimes and never played M-rated video games, as there are thousands of people in the world who have played violent games and never even ran a red light.

Parents need to take responsibility when they buy games for their kids, but they should not be blamed if a kid commits a crime. With your suggestion we could always blame parents for anything anyone does, because we could just swing "bad parenting" at them. Someone stabbed a fellow commuter? Must be bad parenting, lock up mum and dad. They should have done their job better.

However, if your child acts out the content of that video game in real life not only should the child be punished by you should be as well.

Why the child? If the parents are responsible for giving a game to the kid, then surely by your standards, the kid is innocent.

I don't think the mature themes are a problem at all. But I think there's a number of problems that all seem to merge together. In my opinion, they are:

1.) The fallacy (or phallus-y *rimshot*) that children can't handle the imagery and themes.

Children with good parents can indeed handle it - This is nearly all children. It's the ones with chavvy and neglectful parents who allow their games console to become the childen's nanny.

2.) How to separate idiotic children from the rest of us:

There's no workable way to keep games away from impressionable children with neglectful parents other than allowing retailers to refuse sale if they think that sloppy parenting is going on. Parents get the final say in their purchases - but the neglectful ones - parents of screamin' kids only see the game as a means to keep little Johnny Boy out of their hair and ignore it when they make a nuisance of themselves for others.

The screaming shitheads we see on X Box Live aren't raging about war, sex, violence or anything like that. They're just raging that they got beaten by better players. This can be remedied by not including headsets in the next console or by putting in an auto-mute function.

I do think that ideally, idiots shouldn't be playing the games as they cannot take being bested by others.

3.) If all else fails:
If there's enough legitimate complaints about a single gamer from the community at large, their console gets banned from Live. While this system is already in place - it's simply not staffed by enough people.

Failing that, if gamers cannot be trusted to play the game without turning into arseholes - we're all going to have to rely upon referees and adjudicators. Someone glitching, bitching, boosting, cheating or generally being an arse - Ref'll boot 'em out of the lobby and hand down a three day ban or something.

Why not invite these various moral guardians at PEGI or wherever it is to monitor exactly what goes on in the games - should be an eye opener for them and a corrective jolt for any griefers or screamers.

While my ideas are ham-fisted and possibly ill-concieved - it's still better than sending folks to prison for sloppy parenting.

RatRace123:
Part of me kind of agrees with this.

You have idiot parents out there who buy their kids Grand Theft Auto and then are shocked when they discover what type of content is actually in the game, so then they try to crusade that games should be banned and regulated because they did a piss poor job, but hell will freeze over before they'll ever admit any fault on their part.

Seeing such people put in jail would be immensely satisfying.

I don't think you understand the situation. Those people aren't the people that would be effected by this. Those are the victims they're trying to defend. The people this is trying to fight against are people who understand and trust their children enough to know that they're probably not going to turn into sociopaths by playing mature games, and that when they were a kid, they watched movies they probably shouldn't have, and they turned out fine etc etc.

IE, all the sane people.

In the end, it should be the parents call what's right for their child. Alcohol is one thing, it actually kills, all the time, and can wreak havoc on a developing person, and we have years of impartial evidence to support that. Pornography? Sure, it's crude, but I imagine any kid that wanted to look at porn was physically ready to look at porn and I honestly don't think it hurts as much as people say, but I'll grant them that.

But R-Rated movies and Video Games?

Seriously? Sure, they may seem distasteful, and if you want to raise your child in such a way that is opposed to such things, more power to you. But every piece of evidence they have against movies/games is spurious at best. The best research indicates there's no real solid causal link, and the fact that violent crime goes down and down as the game industry gets bigger and bigger, it's easy enough to argue a case that violent games are GOOD for children. I wouldn't make that case, but it could be made, with more actual evidence then the current anti-games lobby has going for itself.

Parents need to be informed. They need to make informed choices about the things they buy their kids. That's why these rating systems are a good thing in principle, because before the rating systems, there was really no way to know except maybe the box art. Now every questionable thing in the game (broadly speaking) is put right on the box, so you can make an informed choice. After that, it's really up to the parents, and unless they can show hard evidence that violent games in fact lead to prolonged violent behavior, fuck them for even suggesting such a brain dead idea as arresting parents over this shit - as people have no doubt said, your parent getting arrested has a much stronger causal link to criminal behavior later in life then video games ever could.

The Lunatic:
Ladies, Gentlemen.

I present to you.

A nutjob.

And a bit of a jerk as well. I mean: "Innapropriate for the kids". I feel that is up to the parents to decide. Continue running campaigns to increase awareness is good but prosecuting parents, who I feel should decide for their child, is taking it a step too far. There are irresponsible parents, sure, but prosecuting them will just throw the whole thing into contention again. Parents will say "we didn't know" or "why do they even make games this violent" and someone will suggest an even more radical thing to do. So yeah, I'm against this.

That Dr. Nick Robinson dude is a moron.

Well, he's not completely off-base. I'll side with anyone who blames incompetent parents for the "corruption" of children rather than the games themselves over some politician in a suit saying VIDIA GARMES ER BAHD!

Buying your child violent video games is not bad parenting.

Not properly teaching your child how to handle those, ignoring your child or simply not caring, however is. And that you won't be able to prosecute parents for, unfortunately.

The problem here is idiots having kids in the first place. license to breed is the only real answer.

Torrasque:
The fundamental flaw in this guy's "logic" is his use of "inappropriate".
Who is he to say what games are inappropriate for a person's kids? Who is he to say that Call of Duty and other violent video games, are inappropriate? I think it is up to the parents to decide what games are appropriate for their kids, and what games are not.

Yes, so right but I think next time someone gets stabbed we need to sue the shit outta every knife manufacturer in the world, after all they are supplying deadly devices to anyone with some cash. Same goes for gun makers, car company's and booze barons. If it wasn't for a-holes like this guy, we'd be able to build The Device and all would be right with the world but no, this twat thinks he can solve every little problem that doesn't exist.

ps The Plunk I would like it if retailers had the power to refuse a sale to a parent that they have reason to believe is buying a game for their under-age kid. (e.g. if the retailer saw one saying "Is this the one you wanted, Timmy?)

I've seen Game and GameStation do that here in Scotland, so they can but just won't.

I am totally cool with parents getting punished for buying their kids Call Of Honor: Future Battlefield.

As has been mentioned before, many parents seem incompetent when it comes to parenting and then proceed to blame all their bad decisions on others.

I really think that imprisoning parents is hardly a sensible thing to do. But on the other hand, I think we're all a bit sick of parents buying their kid a violent game and then blaming ALL gamers when their little Johnny goes out and tries to cut someones fingers off saying "the game made me do it".

I think it should simply go like this-

If you buy your 10 year old a hyper violent game which is rated for 18 year olds, you waver all right to complain when your kid shoots you in the leg with a nail gun.

yes! because raising your own kid is your own responsibility, as long as you follow our precise instructions and take all the blame when shit hits the fan!

ratings are cool tool for a parent - not an ultimate guideline.

my parents were very wise when it came to restricting my games - they were fine with games like baldurs gate when i was 9. because they knew i could take it. they took interest in games that i played, even tried some out. they saw my reactions during gameplay. they were actively searching information about games in game magazines. they didnt mind me playing above my "age bracket" as long as they thought it wasnt mindless violence, but actual mature content. i actually think it helped me grow up.

now here comes SOME person who obviously believes HE KNOWS BETTER THAN ALL, who will take no responsibility for his actions AT ALL because why should he - its not his kids.

see, im for blaming parents when their kids does something stupid because of bad parenting, but RESTRICTING parents will not help. if a parent thinks his kid can handle a mature book, he can allow his kid to read it - none will stop him, hell, some schools will even FORCE the kid to read mature books. but games, whoooo its so different. because we know kids dont give a damn about books right? so it wont leave an impression.

even issuing a fine would be stupid. they do that already for "adult" adult stuff now dont they? why wont we leave it at that?

Berithil:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Wait.... He's serious.....

It's not the governments job to raise children, its the job of the parents. If mommy and daddy want to get little 6 year timmy grand theft auto for Christmas, it might not be the wisest decision, but its still their choice. Unless its a blatant crime like murder or meth cooking, the government has no business in what happens in the family home, period.

Agreed. It's getting a bit ridiculous how many different restrictions and punishments governments are trying to bring in lately for things like this. I understand he's trying to make parents take responsibility for what they let their child do but why punish them because their kid might become abusive and violent and all that other stuff.

Nicolaus99:
Please tell me no one on that side of the pond takes this lunatic seriously.

I sincerely hope not. Then again, I heard that we're going to start legally enforcing the 12 rating, so maybe society is collapsing after all.

OT: That is the most asinine, completely fucking mad idea ever. If this law was to be implemented, surely any parent who lets their child watch the news should be arrested because of the fact that that has violent material in.

Luckily, we only have confirmations that one guy actually believes in this, and there's no proof of that either.

I'm still waiting for the rating system on books ;p

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here