Are violent films and video games the cause of violent crimes among the young?

Mar 23, 2019 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

At the outset, let me express my sincere sadness and sympathy at the violent attack on Dr. Brian O’Toole. I was introduced to Brian by a mutual friend – Terrance Simmons, and the few occasions I happened to be in his company were enough for me to develop a deep appreciation of his humanity and commitment to Guyana’s development. Brian, I pray for your speedy return to good health, Guyana could ill afford to lose citizens of your calibre to senseless violent acts.
Since the incident involving Dr. O’Toole, the debate on the role of movies and video games in the perpetuation of violent crimes has been reignited. Indeed, Dr. O’Toole, in urging parents to pay some attention to the type of video games their children play, has contributed to the resurgence of this debate.
While studies have indicated that constant exposure to violent movies and video games do play a role in influencing some young people to behave violently, I know of no study that establishes that, by themselves, viewing violent films or playing violent video games causes anyone to commit violent crimes. To argue that being involved in these activities causes crime, begs the question – ‘so why don’t the vast majority of youths who are regularly involved in such activities, commit violent crimes?
The fact that viewing violent films and playing video games laced with violence do not lead to the majority of youths being involved in violent acts, suggest that something else is involved here. The violence we observe from the few must be influenced by their hours of exposure to violence plus something else. The question is what could this something else be?
In an attempt to help the criminologist answer this question, social psychology has offered a number of explanations for consideration. Among these is its theory on frustration. Frustration occurs when one is prevented from obtaining a desired thing, or performing some act or going somewhere. Social psychologists hold that it is frustration that gives rise to uncontrolled anger, which in turn give rise to what we refer to as senseless violence.
It is economic condition that is a leading contributor to frustration. This is why it is among the unemployed, the underemployed and the poor that high levels of frustration and anger are mostly observed. Thus, it is members of these groups who are mostly guilty of committing senseless violent crimes.
Taking a lead from my earlier observation, one would be right to respond to the above argument, by noting that even though frustration is highest among the poor, the majority of poor people do not commit violent crimes. The response to this correct observation, demands that we give attention to another proposition of the social psychologist.
Most of us learn to restrain our frustration, our anger through our tendency to imitate others, specifically those we respect and with whom we share a close relationship. Thus, our parents are generally the people we first learn to imitate. It is the way we observe our parents dealing with frustration and anger that, at least initially, is imitated by many of us. For, example, it is widely held that children who come from abusive homes, are more likely than those who do not, to become abusers as adults.
Of course as we mature, other persons influence who we are. Sometimes these new persons’ influence could override that of our parents, example our religious leaders, school teachers, etc. However, that early impact on our behaviour that our parents influence, should not be trivialized.
As I understand it, the attacker made no attempt to relieve Dr. O’Toole of any of his possessions. That fact coupled with recent occurrences, and since School of the Nation is seen as mostly catering for the children of the ‘well offs,’ led many to suspect that Dr. O’Toole’s attacker might have been a child from a well-to-do family, who harboured some grudge.
Since my earlier argument speaks to the link between one’s economic condition and frustration, leading ultimately to senseless violence, how do we explain the violence of youths from wealthy families?
One way of explaining the above, is for the criminologist to again turn to social psychology for help. The theory of attribution holds that our reaction to another’s behaviour towards us is influenced by the meaning we give to the behaviour. Thus, if we perceive that the motive, the intention behind another’s action is to hurt us, we will react angrily towards him/her.
Here is an example we can all appreciate. During a cricket match the batsmen attempt to take a sharp single, the bowler, too late, perceives their intent, swoops down, collects the ball and hurls it at the wicket, misses same and strikes the batsman. The batsman is not offended; in fact, he laughs, and the umpire takes no action.
Alternatively, the batsmen scamper a quick single (we say ‘thief a single’) because of a lackadaisical bowler, the spectators laugh, the bowler is embarrassed. Therefore, even though the run is completed, he hurls the ball at a batsman, who he perceives as the cause of his embarrassment. The batsman charges towards him menacingly, the umpire intervenes and sanctions the bowler. In this case, the bowler’s violent behaviour is fuelled by the meaning he gives to the batsmen action, ‘they intentionally embarrassed me.’
The above example gives us a possible understanding of some of the senseless violence of the rich and well to do. The rich tend to have a high sense of their own importance and right to privileges. Many are quick to see acts of others that prevent them from having their own way, as proof of hostility towards them, a desire to embarrass them or intended to deny them what they see as having a right to.
Just like children of the poor, children from rich homes also imitate their parents. Thus, they take offence, become angry, and sometimes seek to do harm to those who dare to sanction their behaviour. The violence they indulge in while playing video games merely reinforce what they copy from their parents or it merely suggests to them a form that their behaviour can take, in what they see, as their legitimate desire to strike back.

Yours faithfully,
Claudius Prince

---

---