Rob Jones

Late last month I was asked if I would appear on ITN news to discuss the game Manhunt and whether I thought such games induce people to commit acts of violence.

It was the day after the mother of Stefan Pakeerah, who was brutally murdered by his friend, blamed the game for the way her son was killed and called for it to be banned. At that point, the daily papers were also clamouring for the game - and any of its ilk - to be banned, and the Dixons Group withdrew Manhunt from its shelves.

This is an extremely emotive and sensitive subject, and the debate over banning is one where people will typically fall on one side of the fence or the other. A child died in a particularly horrific manner, and that means computer games and their increasingly violent content will come under scrutiny.

The question is, does a game induce someone of a peaceful nature to commit real-life violent acts once they have switched it off and walked away from their PC? It's an argument similar to the one that has raged around the film and music sectors for years, and it is one that will long surround computer games.

I don't believe that games, films or music induce violence in people that don't have the capacity to commit violent acts under ordinary circumstances, but that doesn't help the pain of a mother who has lost her son.

Blaming the game gives the killer an easy get-out, and dampens the terrible crime he committed. It should never be forgotten that he was tooled up to commit a vicious robbery to pay off a drugs debt, according to reports. If you set out to commit a violent robbery, and are armed with a knife and claw hammer, a frenzied attack can quickly become a brutal murder.

Equally though, games manufacturers thrive on gore, pushing the boundaries of violence in the name of entertainment. The market is saturated and so manufacturers need to keep pushing the boundaries to make their games attractive to players and commercially successful (just look at the buzz surrounding Doom 3).

Manhunt's plot is loosely similar to that of The Running Man, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, but the difference is that with a film you are a passive viewer. With a game, you are an active participant, and that does make it all the more important that stricter controls are adhered to, ensuring that retail outlets cannot sell the game to minors and that parents are aware of what they are buying for their children.

Voluntary age limits need to become legally enforceable, with the threat of prosecution against those that ignore them. Manufacturers need to be responsible in how and where they promote their games, especially when that marketing will reach sizeable teenage audiences.

Finally, it may sound a glib statement to say parental control should be greater, but if it doesn't start in the home, then who else can we expect to take responsibility for the actions of our children?

Like this story? Spread the news by clicking below:

 del.icio.us     Digg this     reddit!