Slashdot Log In
A Unique Perspective on a 'Game-Related' Tragedy
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Feb 22, 2007 02:55 PM
from the for-low-values-of-related dept.
from the for-low-values-of-related dept.
Megnatron writes "Penny Arcade has a letter from the stepmother of one of the kids who was recently charged with killing a homeless man. Her article is an extremely sobering tale of the problems dealing with troubled teen. She explains how, in this situation, the parents did everything they possibly could. And, in a refreshing twist, she absolves the games industry of any blame for the tragedy these kids perpetrated. From her missive: 'Video games DID NOT make this kid who he was, and it's unfortunate that the correlation is there. The thing that really gets me with this whole thing is that the kid knows full well that by equating what he's done to a video game, that he will generate controversy and media coverage. It makes me sick that the media is jumping all over this, because that is exactly the result that he wants. The only good thing (if there is such a thing) that has come out of this whole ordeal is that the kid is behind bars. That is exactly where he needs to be.'" Her letter is a passionate, troubling story, but well worth reading.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Scarily familiar... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's quite impressive really, how a web-comic that deliberately sets out to be juvenile and offensive so often ends up involved in a reasonably respectable way in some pretty big news stories.
I know this probably isn't the most appropriate comment, but I this whole thing really does remind me strongly of this book [amazon.com]. In fact, the echos are bordering on being uncanny. I guess it all boils down to the question of whether somebody can just be "born bad".
The evidence both from this case (if the account here is to be believed) and my own experiences is "yes, they can". I'm not sure anybody in the political or academic estabishments really want to face up to the implications of this, though.
Re:Scarily familiar... (Score:5, Interesting)
Frankly, all of science points to the answer being "yes". In fact there are numerous examples of people becoming downright evil from head trauma. And just like the ending of fight club, there is at least one case where the opposite is true. (Truth is stranger than fiction, after all.)
In fact a fairly recent study also stated that those people who are just happy all the time no matter what haven't made a decision to be that way. It is not an exercise of will. Those people are actually physiologically different.
The simple truth is that some people simply are born bad. I'm torn on whether we should be curing them, or implementing George Carlin's idea and turning the four corner states into a gigantic prison, and just throw them in there.
"Born Bad"... (Score:4, Insightful)
Some are born completely without the ability to discern cause and effect, and some are born with a complete psychological immunity to corrective tactics.
Some are pathological liars.
Yes, you can be "born bad." I've seen it many times. There are schoolteachers who think "no kid is really a bully" and try to "understand" everyone: these schoolteachers are retarded fucktards who let bullying happen.
The same goes for the retarded fucktards who took the kid's word over the parents who were screaming for protection and help in trying to discipline him.
Word to the cops: if the PARENTS are begging you to put him in jail and prosecute, WHAT THE FUCK do you think you're doing handing him back off?
Those cops should be fired for laziness and incompetence.
Re:"Born Bad"... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not an example of what I am talking about. That particular issue can happen from either nature or nurture. Letting the kids get away with their shit is rewarding that behavior because it places them above other children for whom there is zero tolerance. Like me, for example. I was a mama's boy up until I was about 21, no joke. Total pussy pushover. I used to get attacked at school literally every day. If they weren't hitting me they were destroying my bicycle, that kind of shit. So one day a kid attacks me without any backup and keeps it up until I get pissed off - all 5'11" of me or so at that time. I've been pretty huge since about the end of sixth grade, that was the year I started getting the nonstop growing pains. So I beat the living crap out of him and got expelled.
Yeah, I have to agree completely with that.
The real problem there is that the system isn't interested in helping people anyway, or rehabilitating anyone. If they were, the prison system wouldn't be allowed to remain a mass of murder and rape that only begets additional violence and not only provides opportunities for people to learn to commit more serious crimes, but also provides them with incentive to do so because we continue to punish people after they have ostensibly served their debt to society. They cannot get many types of jobs, they cannot vote, et cetera. The only reason to disenfranchise ANYONE is so that you don't have to fix the problems that affect them. Disenfranchising felons means you don't have to fix the problems that create felons, because those people can't vote you out anyway.
No, if you stop that kid from being a bully now, you can't make money on him by placing him in prison.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I went through a system where if there was anything going on, each kid got punished equally. Why? Because the school organizers were r
Re:"Born Bad"... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Scarily familiar... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:doesn't work that way (Score:5, Insightful)
"A Clockwork Orange" was a vastly underrated book...
Re:Scarily familiar... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you RTFA, you would know that the real trouble was the system's refusal to lock him away from other children and even his own parents because they were socialized to believe that it's never the kid's fault, and that parents are always abusers. They were too lenient, not too restrictive.
Yeah, a kid died. I wonder how much of that has to do with permissive government policies instituted by people with philosophies much like your own.
Re:Scarily familiar... (Score:5, Informative)
* C - cannot follow law
* O - obligations ignored
* R - remorselessness
* R - recklessness
* U - underhandedness
* P - planning deficit
* T - temper
Here's the checklist for a psychopath
1. Glibness/superficial charm
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
3. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
4. Pathological lying
5. Cunning/manipulative
6. Lack of remorse or guilt
7. Shallow affect
8. Callous/lack of empathy
9. Parasitic lifestyle
10. Poor behavioral controls
11. Promiscuous sexual behavior
12. Early behavioral problems
13. Lack of realistic, long-term goals
14. Impulsivity
15. Irresponsibility
16. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
17. Many short-term marital relationships
18. Juvenile delinquency
19. Revocation of conditional release
20. Criminal versatility
That's a pretty clear definition of "bad."
Re:Scarily familiar... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Scarily familiar... (Score:5, Informative)
Before you can answer the question you have to define "bad." Most psychologist and psychiatrist would not define "bad", but if they had to it would include a need for conscious understanding of consequence. The disorders you mentioned, along with all other personality disorders, cause a block in the psyche that causes the personality disordered to not be able to comprehend the effects of their actions.
Assuming you define "bad" differently and base it solely on action and effect of action regardless of intent, then you still have to accept that this is still a mater of perspective, as can be seen clearly in both the debate over capital punishment as well as Darwin's natural selection. This can be seen clearly in the high number of Sociopathic and Narcissistic CEOs in the world as it shows that sociopathic, narcissistic and to a lesser extent anti-social behavior is favored by natural selection. Even the list you mentioned contained very few things that people generalize perceive as unforgivably "bad".
You also seem to imply that their is scientific consensus that personality disorders are genetically hereditary, though this is neither accepted nor supported by and peer reviewed and accepted studies. THE DSM-IV states "The cause of [anti-social personality disorder] is unknown, but biological or genetic factors may play a role." This is believed because "The incidence of antisocial personality is higher in people who have an antisocial biological parents." The studies so far have had difficulty separating environmental effects of having afflicted parents from the biological ones. Even when the child is separated from the afflicted parent the environmental effect of parental abandonment is still their which is known to be a major factor in the formation of Personality Disorders. So far there has been no prove physical cause for Personality disorders, which is part of what actually qualifies a disorder as being a personality disorder.Treatment of most personality disorders has been shown to allow a person to live a productive and non-distructive life, though admittedly treatment is almost always required for the rest of the afflicted persons life
Beside all of that you do realize that the founding fathers of the United States, and I would assume many other countries, would qualify as anti-social, among other possible disorders, by the law makers and psychoanalyst (if there were any) of the country it had separated from.
From the DSM - IV only three of the following need to be met to qualify as anti-social.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Scarily familiar... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll will admit that people can be born with violent temperaments. They can be born with harsh attitudes or a lack of empathy. However all but the most severely mentally disabled are born with free will and the ability to reason. People may not intuatively understand right from wrong, but they still know what is acceptable and what is not.
This is why I don't accept the argument that someone is not responsible for their actions because they've had a "hard life" or were "born bad" or live in a "bad neighbourhood". I can be sympathetic, but ultimately I must insist that people take responsibilty for the decisions they have made. I don't think it's a lot to ask.
Blaming society, or genetics, or your parents, or video games or anything else for decisions you yourself have made is an insult to everyone who does accept the consequences of their actions. It's an insult to your own dignity as you are claiming you have lost your own free will.
There are people in this world who were born with physical and mental disabilities. People who have suffered accidents, abuse, insult, poverty and hardship of every kind. Even people who play video games. And most of these people live their lives, despite having to work that much harder at them. They overcome their problems, make an honest living and contribute to the society they live in. Often they contribute more than other more fortunate individuals. Even people with violent personalities or troubled pasts can still find a positive place in society.
When you argue that people are "born bad" or otherwise don't have free will, you're arguing that all these people are wasting their time. That they will never overcome their difficulties and they should either give up an committ a crime, cause trouble, go insane or just kill themselves. That is a flawed assumption. We all have the power to change our own lifes, and to alter the course of our lives. That's what seperates humans from animals.
This kid could have lead a better life. He chose not to. It had nothing to do with his mental chemistry. That was solid enough to allow him to dress himself every morning, walk without stumbling and converse with people when he needed to. He wasn't born bad. He chose to be bad. His parents didn't make that choice. Neither did his genes, or his playstation, or his neighbourhood. He did. Anything else is just an excuse.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ultimately, humans have free will and choose their own actions.
What makes you say that? Free will is an assumption, not a scientific fact.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, wait...
Re:Scarily familiar... (Score:5, Insightful)
In a sense, that's irrelevant to society, however. Philosophically it's all well and good, and well worth debating into the long, dark hours of the night.
Society as a whole is (or should be) unconcerned. If a human CHOOSES to act like a wild animal - in fact, worse than one if you concede free will - he should be treated as one: caged, cared for to a minimal standard of care, and ultimately if not able to behave within norms that society sets - euthanized.
For example, I know that Alfonso Rodruiguez was someobody's little boy, once. But now (after his rape and murder of Dru Sjodin) he is simply a human-shaped dangerous nuisance that it is in the public interest to remove.
As far as the OP's lad, he's not stupid. He knows that society will give him chance after chance after chance, in the vain hope that he will develop something analogous to a conscience. Why should we bother? Because of "Human compassion"? Pull the other one - I have more pre-emptive compassion for his next victim than I ever would for him.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People can be born with certain ge
Re:Scarily familiar... (Score:5, Insightful)
I challenge you to define 'choose'.
If it means "the behaviors selected by the person's neurons", then 'choose' is meaningless: it simply means that they do whatever their brain must (as a physical object) lawfully do in the situation. In this case, it is easy to image a corrupt brain, in the sense that the neural potentials favor sadistic outcomes.
If, however, it means "causelessly or spiritually imposing a decision upon physical matter", then you have an even bigger problem: how does anyone choose to do bad things? Is it then their spirit (or whatever) that is corrupt?
So, stating that we "choose our own actions" is useless. Actually it's worse than useless because not only does the statement fail to convey any data, but it makes it harder for a discussion to focus on the exact locus of sadistic behaviors. These days, the word 'choose' has become the ultimate hand-wave. As your statement shows, it has come to mean "Human decisions are unconnected to reality, so abandon this line of inquiry altogether."
I rather think that behavior is absolutely connected to my brain's content and state. And that is why me-the-person can be considered reliably good (or evil) -- because my behavior has a lawful cause.
Gabe's Original Take, Her Response (Score:5, Informative)
He had that too. (Score:3, Insightful)
He figured out a way around everything.
And that's a terrible waste, but an inevitable consequence of spending a child's entire adolescence teaching them that they are accountable to someone other than themself, when ultimat
Reading this story (Score:3, Interesting)
A situation like this happened with a co-workers step-child which ended up in his divorce from his wife. She couldnt see the kid for what he was and it ended up tearing them apart.
That kids now preparing to go to trial for killing his friend when in a drug haze he ran his car off the road and into a tree.
There is a REASON for that (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey, the authorities do that for a very good reason: an adult can be far more articulate and persuasive than a child accuser. Believe me, the police and social workers erring on the side of caution is a GOOD thing.
Don't think I'm making this up, either
Re:Reading this story (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, the children know this and manipulate it. Have been doing so for a very long time -- they know you have no actual authority over them if they choose not to listen to you. You can't actually compel them in any way to listen.
There were enough cases of child abuse in the past that all of the agencies are now required by law to investigate all claims of abuse. Denial by the accused abusers is basically ignored as all guilty people would deny it. They basically have to presume you're guilty in order to try to protect the child's welfare (it's well meaning, but not often reliable). And, in the end, it's difficult to disprove such claims.
(I know someone going through court now because a neighbor witnessed him hoist his child into the car, and then claimed she saw/though she saw him smacking the child around. When his wife decided to leave him for his best friend, she started coaching the 4 year old into claiming daddy was touching her in bad places -- in court, the child has admitted that mommy told her to say that. On the heels of the first erroneous claim, the second claim of now sexual abuse is very hard to dispell: basically it's compounded on him. Such things get very ugly quick.)
I find it scary that a child who is repeatedly in trouble could fool the teachers into thinking "I didn't do it, and by the way, my parents abused me". Especially when this child was over 6 feet and over 200lbs -- a very big 14 year old indeed.
I realize you can't suddenly start treating all accusations lightly, for fear of ignoring the problem. But, there has to be a better way of looking into these things. Unfortunately, an unfounded claim of abuse can ruin your life just as quickly and easily as a verifiable, documented case of abuse -- people will go after you with equal zeal and tar you with the same brush.
The fact that repeatedly, police and school officials were told that this kid was way out of control is scary indeed. The fact that an apparent "thrill kill" had to take place before anyone would believe them is appalling. Hopefully at least something good comes out of this in the long run.
Cheers
Love (Score:3, Interesting)
I realize that most of the dot, myself included, rarely reads articles before commenting on them. This one is very much worth the read, regardless of whether you intend to comment or not.
Call me a cynic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Call me a cynic (Score:4, Funny)
I'm a cynic too (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, bullshit. Yeah, I'm so sure that some government worker pic
Re:Call me a cynic (Score:5, Informative)
If you noticed, there's a second kid in the house - a kid who's turning out just fine.
And I've no doubt Gabe doublechecked the story and verified the connection before publishing.
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I usually like to blame the parents, as it is often their fault. You read these stories where the parents had no idea what was going on (Colombine: pipe bomb building in the garage???). Or where the parent just defends them ("Little Johnny never would have done that. The other kids made him do it.").
I gotta say reading that was kind of scary. If I had to take a guess I'd say he is a sociopath (literally), but that's just a guess. He is obviously very intelligent (calling people abusers). The fact they kept investigating it doesn't surprise me (what if it was true one of those times) but he knew how to get power. Kids can also act out like that if they are being abused, so that would lend "credibility".
I'm sure the divorces and remarriages in his life didn't help, but if it really is sociopathic, that probably wouldn't matter. I can offer suggestions of things that might have helped him (if he was help-able). Military boot camp, having him sent to jail those times the police came. Making him a ward of the state. Trying to give him possession of his own life (can't remember the term, basically having him declared an independent adult).
She said she tried "everything" so I don't know which of those were done. I'm amazed that she put up with it for so long.
This kid is REALLY the exception to the rule. He would have been exactly the same if this happened in 1960.
Too bad this kid will probably be the example of what video games do to kids that the media trots out constantly.
People like him (from her description, assuming it's true), are one of the things that make me believe in true evil.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)
It took my father's sudden death (heart failure) when I was 15 to snap me out of it. I fell into a deep depression (I already suffered from chronic depression) and ended up spending half a year at a residential treatment facility for emotionally unstable teenagers.
I look back, and both my mother and I can agree that, my father's death inadvertantly saved my life. I was probably only a year or so off from making a big mistake. My father was already terminally ill at the time from leukemia... probably only had a year and a half left, based on the estimate from the autopsy. His death cost him and us another year or two together, but may have given me many more years to live life.
That was about 12 years ago. My father would be proud of the person I am today. I don't think that would be the case if he had survived.
I met a lot of kids who were like me, in the places I went. There are more exceptions to the rule than people think.
Re:Hmm You're 23 what do you know about the '60s? (Score:5, Interesting)
In 1960 life was very different. His dad wouldn't be "grounding him" he'd have taken him to the wood shed and corrected his attitude. You only have to be course corrected a few times at an early age. The mother's mention of negative reinforcement probably did not include throwing the kid out the door into the street and telling him to only come home once he appecated what he had going for him in the form of a warm bed and three square meals a day.
School teachers in 1960 could beat you with a shaved baseball bat until you're buttocks were bruised so you couldn't sit down. His teacher's or their husbands would likely have been a WWII or Korean War veteran. Why mention that? Because if the little goblin had raised a hand to a teacher, he'd have drawn back a stump. His school Principal would have certainly been a) male and b) unsympathetic to his claim of 'abuse'. His Principal would very likely have a shaved baseball bat and two foot prints painted on the floor in front of his desk.
If none of that registered on him, in 1960, he'd of been shipped off to someplace like "West Texas Boy's Ranch" or "The San Antonio Boy's Town" or "Father Flanagan's Boys Town" or any of the other "homes for boys". He'd have had to work 30-35 hours a week growing the food he ate, tending the stock and still ride the bus 1-2 hours each way to attend school. He'd live in a "bay barracks" style dorm with 30 other kids. He would do laundry, muck out barns, peel potatoes and stack hay. Sunday he'd go to church and get a whole 5-6 hours to reflect the error of his way.
If he ran away and tried to 'go home' the Sheriff would run him down with dogs and drag him back to the county farm for recalcitrant youth or what ever the place was called. Then the keepers would move his bunk to the barn take his mattress and blankets way until he'd earned his spot in the dorm back.
Believe it or not the boy would be different. If this was 1960 he'd be different or he'd be dead.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
After being abused and mistreated for years by people he hated and looked down on, with his strong disregard for other humans?
Yeah, he'd probably have killed a handful of them.
I hate to say it but Gabe was right the first time (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes he was unmanageable at 15 but what about at two? How about at five? How much love and time did he get at seven?
It is possible that even with the best parents in the world he might have still become a killer but it seems far from the perfect family life to me.
Sounds like a few more wasted lives. The poor guy that was killed and the kids that did the killing.
Re:I hate to say it but Gabe was right the first t (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes he was unmanageable at 15 but what about at two? How about at five? How much love and time did he get at seven?
Read a bit more closely, and you'll catch this bit:
I am sorry this got so long. I have been reading PA since the very beginning, and I feel that both of you are very much like me. I think we are the same age (29) and I have been a lifelong gamer like the two of you.
If she's 29, then she would have been around 14 when the kid was born -- and remember, she describes herself as a kind-of stepmother. It sounds like she didn't get involved until he was already a teenager -- too late for her to have much impact, especially if she was only in her mid-20's herself.
So we can't draw any conclusions about her bad parenting when he was a baby. Also, note that he was living with his dad until he decided to leave -- and move in with his natural mom, who had even less control over the situation. If we must conclude that nurture had a larger role than nature, then we have to look at her role, long before the letter's author was involved.
How do you get that? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't understand how you can blame the parents based on the information provided. Sure, the parents split up, but there are plenty of parents who divorce or separate and still have well-adjusted children. Beyond that, we simply have no idea what this kid's childhood was like. We also have no idea how long the stepmother has been on the scene, so I don't see how you can expect her to comment on how much love the child received at any specific age, much less support any conclusions based on the presence or absence of the word "love" in a letter.
It seems like a great modern fad (and fallacy) to blame parents for every lousy thing a kid does, as if people have become desperate to take nature out of the classic "nature vs. nurture" argument. But none of us are shaped purely by our environment, as the mention of the kid's younger brother being reasonably well-adjusted supports. We all have judgement and free will, so unless some actual evidence surfaces to support the notion that the parents somehow meaningfully contributed to these horrible acts, let's place blame back on the kid who committed them, shall we?
Mental issues? No punishment (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of the time, he didn't even remember why he was being grounded
We're talking stealing cars, setting fires, drinking, getting picked up for drugs, beating up handicapped kids at school (yes, really)
I see two important things, #1 he has trouble comprehending his actions in some way. #2 This person claims he has a long record of criminal offenses, but hasn't had any real punishment.
He likely just thought he could get away with it, like he had with everything else for YEARS. At some point the government should help out a bit, maybe put him in jail. Teaching him he can get away with this type of behaviour is a fatal mistake.
Genetic factor? (Score:3, Interesting)
I really suspect a genetic disorder in these cases. I don't know which one, but I fail to see how the same household could produce such wildly dissimilar siblings. Same parents, same environment, same education... It's got to be genomes.
This is not to absolve the little perps. Except in the most extreme cases, most people with psychopathic tendencies can exercise will power to keep themselves out of trouble. That's why I didn't take a gun in my car, for example. Yet, most of these bastards hogging the freeway during my commute would amply deserve a few high-caliber bursts, let me tell ya. But did I do it? Nope. Sheer will power at work. So I *know* it can be done. You always have a choice unless you are desperately screwed up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, those got tamed by the leftist socia
When they're as far gone as this kid... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because it has a humanoid form does not make it human.
Well, its handy that you've located the source... (Score:4, Insightful)
Had the conservative policies been in place, maybe he would have been locked up sooner, but I can guarentee he would have been fucking up kids in Juvie...creating more little monsters out of kids that already had problems. Sooner or later they would have let him out, too. Maybe the life of that bum would have been saved...but only if you lock the kid up forever before he kills anybody. You have to weigh the risk of him doing serious damage against the probablility he's just freaking out on hormones and will straighten out. A potential wasted teenager vs. a potential wasted old bum.
Locking people up with other messed up people doesen't tend to make any of them less messed up...and for the most part you have to let them out someday. Prison does not rehabilitate anybody, or serve as much of a deterrent to crime....all you have to look at is the recividism rates to know that. What comes out is worse than what went in. It's cruel and pointless, and its only done because we as a society can't quite bring ourselves to put down dangerous animals of our own species.
Ideally, we could spend the cash to get our prisons under control, and make a real effort to rehabilitate. If rehabilitation fails, the person is euthanized. Unfortunately, our government is way too incompentant and corrupt to do this in a sane or just manner...so we have...what we have...courtesy of the Prison Guards Union.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For that, I love her even more too. ;->
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I find that incredibly hard to believe, and woul
Re:Proof Positive, Government (Congressional) Docs (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Stepmother (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking from experience, my sister is like this kid. This girl put my parents through 18 years of pure hell, was a contributing factor in their divorce and my mothers alcoholism. She currently is unable to hold any job, but has two illegitimate children. The kids do not even have proper beds to sleep on, but child services will not remove them from her custody. My mother offered to adopt them, and she refused to give up custody. This girl leeches off my father at age 22. She spends her money on cigarettes instead of food/clothing for the kids, then calls us for handouts. If you asked me what I thought of her, my response would be very similar to the step-mother who sent this letter. There is no love there, there is no respect or compassion. My life will only be better if I never interacted with that waste of a human being ever again.
But I guess by your standards, I just sold her out, and am a terrible person.
Re:Stepmother (Score:5, Insightful)
She did not betray him. She did not sell him out. There was nothing to sell out in the first place. Hell what do you want her to do. Is she supposed to defend him? How do you defend a child like this? He was from a broken home, fine. He murdered someone. You either jail him, jail him for life in solitary, execute him, or give him a free pass because he couldn't fucking cope with the same shit alot of other kids do. What do you do when he gets out of jail and kills again? Another free pass? Hell the woman tried to do what she could.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've heard that plenty of times from people doing wrong and right in a variety of situations - committing a crime, being a victim of crime, se