In the technologic age we live in, one of our many mediums we rely on for entertainment purposes is the television. With that, comes a wide array of optional devices we use to enhance our viewing pleasure, or as most people see it as "wasting time in front of the idiot box." In the entertainment world, there are three titans that reign over the consumers. They are the Movie industry, record labels and third being the Video game companies. In video games there will always be controversy. It wasn't until the early 90's where video games had regulation over rating. Some say that is a great way to keep underage minors from more mature titles. Others say they will find a way to get around that. Their parents will buy them for them without regard or discretion. But when it comes into subject on games being the reason violent crimes are committed, who's to blame. Some believe that it's the gaming industries fault. That producing these games time and time again, despite the voice of the people who speak against it? Most claims state that it's the parents who should be held accountable for what their children interact with. In most cases the law is pretty blunt on who is to be held accountable for their actions in situations.
Some scientists have run studies and tests confirming that video games do affect the minds and actions in their subjects. But is it enough to be used as a defense in, let's say a hit and run, where driving is a privilege? Or in an assault case where one could be defending oneself but inflict more damage to their assailant and leads to their demise? For years the courts have been torn by science and circumstance. For me I will stand on the grounds that it is the individual who is in control of their actions and not some virtual console. Games are not the reason people break the law, and should not be the grounds of a defense.
Take for instance a case in Louisiana, where an 8 year old boy fatally shot and killed his grandmother in their mobile home after playing Grand Theft Auto IV.
