Media And Violence Essay, Research Paper

Violence in America Will it Ever End

Today in St. Paul two people were murdered. It has been reported that the two were fighting with a third party about a phone call that was made. The suspect is in custody and the case is under investigation, a reporter in the ten o clock news reports. Spouse

and child abuse are on the rise. This year alone over 6 million men, women, and children were victims of severe physical attacks from their spouses or parents (article 16)*, another reporter reports. Is it just me or does this seem like something that is all

too often heard on the news? The violent acts in the United States are out of control. But what can be done about it, and how much worse are things going to get? It seems to methat what is being done now isn t enough, because things just keeps getting worse.

There are twelve main things that have been being studied in depth lately by

sociologists. They include: spanking, child abuse, spouse abuse, the punishment for the

offenders, gun control, the media s affect on violence, the role sports play in violence,

the role religion plays in violence, pacifism, and international violence. My paper will

discuss each of these aspects as well as my opinions and state some facts.

Before I can say how I feel, I think there is a need to define violence,

aggressiveness, and assertiveness and explain the difference between them. Violence is a

physical act that intends to harm or hurt another person. Violence includes many things;

such as, hitting, punching, biting, killing, stabbing, shoving, and so much more. Violence

can be linked to two other words that have also become a part of every day life for many

people; aggression and being assertive. Aggression is a hostile, or destructive act that is

forceful. Aggression is usually related with someone being dominant. Being assertive is

to stating something (i.e. your opinion) boldly. Both aggression and being assertive do

not involve a physical force. Although these three words have different meanings, I think

they very closely related. When a person is being assertive and not getting their way, or

getting their point across, they can often become aggressive, and aggression often times

leads to a violent act. This domino effect closely relates all these words.

Violence, it has become something that society has to deal with every day now.

Much newspaper space is currently being given to violence–the violence that is

happening and the frequent cries to stop it, says that writer of article 3*. Just think of

the major world events that happened last couple years; Columbine, the Oklahoma City

bombing, Jonesboro, the increase of gang violence, or even the racist incidents that

happened at Champlin Park last year. All of these huge events involves at least one

violent reaction. Turn on the television for half an hour, the amount of violence,

assertiveness, or aggression you will notice in cartoons, sitcoms, or even on the news will

be extremely high. We are being exposed to violence more and more every day, and a lot

of times I don t think people even realize that they are being exposed. Watching

wrestling or a sport on television are two examples of this. It seems like society is

starting to see violence as something normal. A person getting murdered is no longer

headline news, it takes a immature kid to go and shoot eight classmates of his in order to

open people s eyes. People have become so used to hearing about someone being unable

to control themselves and lashing out at someone that they don t even turn their head

anymore when they hear about it. Violence, aggression and assertiveness are an everyday

part of life now.

Violence, and aggression are learned behaviors. …aggressive behavior is learned

very early in life and continues with the individual over many years, (article 18)*. Just

like a parent teaches a child to say please and thank you and be considerate of others,

they can teach them violence. A parent is probably the most important influence a

person has. Children not only look up their parents and admire them, they want to be like

them. When a child sees the person they admire hitting someone, or do something else

that could be characterized as violent, they begin to think it is okay to act in such a way.

After continuously seeing this violence they will become violent themselves. Society

also teaches violence.

We have produced a society in which there is a great pressure on males to

continually prove themselves. Much teaching in our society, including the role-modeling

in TV and movie fiction, reinforces the view that if males don t get what they want, or if

life has been unfair, they should go out and get even by beating up, even killing, other

people, (article 1). Society does this through the media, television, music, and other

things that are an important part of a child s life. Sometimes what defeats us is the

larger culture. American society is marvelous in its competitiveness and its autonomy

and its independence. But many times that spills over into a kind of me-first aggression,

this statement from article 1* agrees with me fully on my statement that society also

teaches violence. A child, for example, viewing a lot of television shows that incorporate

violence in their plot, sees that violence is okay. There are tons of television shows aimed

at children that have violence in them. Think of X-Men, Superman, Teenage Mutant

Ninja Turtles, and hundreds of other shows that are centered around violence.

Music has also gotten worse when it comes to promoting violence. The number

of CDs with the explicit lyrics sticker on it has probably tripled in the past 5 years. The

lyrics of songs have gotten much more graphic and are constantly talking about shooting

someone, or beating up a cop. The song just isn t a song without that in there now it

seems like. An example from article 16* that also supports society teaches violence is,

People reflect their culture in their behavior and they re just doing what they ve been

taught. Their hero on that show may beat up or even kill the villain which causes a

child to see this as okay to do. He then may go to school and beat another child up for

making him angry.

I think that violence roots from being left out, and having an anti-social life.

When a person has no friends, they can not relate to people and have little people skills.

Goldstein said he believes that antisocial behavior, including violence, is learned. One

is not born with it, (article 1). Teaching child to be social and have interpersonal

relationships throughout their life can definitely absolve people feeling left out and assist

a person in gaining social skills that are necessary in life.

How a parent chooses to discipline their child could shape who the child is for the

rest of their life. Therefore, a parent must be very careful on how they decide to punish

their youngster. My personal opinion on how a parent should deal with a child acting out

in a unfavorable way is to force the child to sit down and talk about what happened, why

it happened, and what they feel should be a punishment. I feel that this is a pretty hard

punishment for a child because most of the time a child will want to go sit in their room

for 5 minutes or have a toy taken away. This form of discipline was suggested to me in

article 1, which discussed a family that doesn t punish their kids using the conventional

methods. Instead, they talk to their children which has been proven to be a pretty harsh

punishment; His wife, Dianne, said, We do put a big value on talking…Sometimes the

kids will say Hit me. Just don t make me talk about it. As far as spanking goes, I

don t think a parent should EVER do this. In my opinion this is a form of child abuse. It

is hitting a child, and touching a child in an unloving way which constitutes as abuse.

Spanking a child, as a form of cultivation, has been shown to harm the child in

the future. Corporal punishment impairs the development of children, interferes with

the learning and increases the likelihood of vandalism and aggression, according to the

resolutionist, (article 2). If parents were aware of this, I highly doubt that they would

continue to use spanking as their form of punishment. They care too much about their

child s future to impair it. We need to provide more parenting support and education, for

not only parents, but also for those that work with children. I also think that it is very

hypocritical for a parent to spank a kid. I find even more hypocritical considering a

recent survey discovered that 75% of respondents opposed spanking, 55% believed it to

be an abusive act, 48% reported having spanked their children, (article 4). They are

constantly telling their children not to hit, that hitting is wrong, but then they go around

and spank their kid. They are giving mixed signals which just confuses a person and

doesn t help him/her at all.

Child abuse is defined, in my opinion, as any unwanted physical act that is

harmful toward the victim. I think society has become more lenient when it comes to

child abuse. It is considered tough love these days if a father beats his child mercilessly

for stealing a dollar from his mother s purse. Society has also begun to turn the other

way when they see child abuse. It isn t my problem so I shouldn t have to deal with it,

seems to be the current mentality of many US citizens. I would hope that if I saw a

parent hit their child I would have the courage and strength to seek the proper authorities

and inform them of the situation. I think that if everyone is so concerned with the

well-being of children and how parents are raising them, then they have to stop looking

in the other direction when they witness a child being punished beyond what they feel is

being disciplined. Once a parent is found guilty of child abuse they should have

mandatory parenting classes, anger management classes and go through many

psychological visits to find the roots of why they feel it is necessary to punish in this way,

and to teach them how to deal with things differently. I also feel that the abused should

see a therapist, to deal with the emotional scaring, and to avoid becoming abusers

themselves.

The American family is second only to the military in the rate of injuries, and

that s only during war time, * as this quote from article 16 shows, spouse abuse is a

much bigger problem than most people think it is. In fact the number of violent lovers

is at about 25% (article 9*). To alleviate this horrid problem there needs to be stricter

enforcement and punishment for the abusers. Placing the accused in jail over night or

forcing them to go stay in a hotel for the night will only solve the problem for the night.

Article 7-A* agrees with me on this, Jail won t do much good. It will not make the

person stop all together.

Tougher things need to be done to the abuser. Jail time (for more than one night)

and mandatory counseling seems like a good idea to me to surpress that amount of

violence in relationships. The abuser needs to realize that they have a problem in order

to take the first step to fixing it. Spending a week or two in jail and going through

counseling may force them to come to reality. It doesn t matter how far along the

relationship has developed if a person places any part of their body on the other person

involved in the relationship in a way that is not wanted, it is abuse.

It is very hard for a woman to get out of a relationship when she is being abused.

…50% felt they could not get along without their partner…, (article 17-A)* This is

because of the love she feels for the man, and the happiness she has when he is not

violent always seem to make up for the abuse she endures. This is shown often in talk

shows; the men abuse the women but they can t get out because they love the man, have

children with him, or have happiness when he isn t abusing her. This was also brought to

my attention by article 9* which states that the person doesn t get out because they often

find separation harder to live with that the abuse. Reason: fear of loneliness or of losing

the status that comes from having a steady date. Women also find it hard to leave the

man because they have a tendency to see aggression as a kind of affection, (article 9).

Another thing that was brought to my attention about the person leaving the abuser is that

Nearly 30% of the couples had at some time taken abuse as a sign of love. And a

number considered violence a normal , even healthy part of a love affair. Three-quarters

of those who had been involved in an assault said it did not do their relationship any

harm. More than one-third felt that hitting, or being hit, actually improved their

relationship, (article 9).

I think that it is a lot harder for the woman to get out the longer she has been with

the man. When a relationship begins and the two are just dating I don t think it would be

as hard for the woman to walk away because she doesn t have a strong bond with the

man, and hasn t felt what his love is like. As the relationship develops and the two begin

to fall in love the amount of emotional pain a woman would have to go through to leave

increases. The two have now gotten closer and she knows both sides of him. The next

step in the relationship would be engagement then marriage.

Many couples involved in abusive situations during courtship go ahead with

their plans for marriage anyway, *(article 17-A). At this point it is extremely hard for

the woman to leave. She has now built her life around this man and more than likely

lives for him. She always has a glimmer of hope that he is going to change.

Society has pointed the blame on this problem on how the abuser grows up; One

in ten husbands who grew up in violent families are wife beaters, compared with one in

30 who grew up in nonviolent homes, (article 16). When a child grows up in a home

seeing their father abuse their mother, the violent behavior seems an acceptable part of

marriage. I also think that men beating their significant other has to do with a male s

power struggle and the need they feel to be above their wife.

Domestic abuse is something that is very hard to deal with for anyone, even the

police, because they are criticized for interfering in a family squabble at all and

criticized for not protecting victims, (article 8)*. The police currently have three ways

of handling domestic violence: mediating the fight, separating the couple, or arresting the

suspect, (article 8)* and none of these things seem to be working.

What needs to be done to alleviate this problem is to teach people differently

when they are younger about the roles they play in the dating game. Currently it seems

like the guys are taught to go to the girl for the date, and the girl is supposed to accept

and go out and be flirty. An example of this is found in article 10*, Despite all the

clamor and headlines about changing sex roles, young women still learn to be cute,

sexually attractive, flirtatious and submissive in a dating relationship. You know-laugh

at all the jokes, cuddle up, go where the date says to go. They aren t supposed to take

responsibility or control. The young man, meanwhile, still learns to play the aggressor.

He asks for the date, decides where to go, pays the expenses and drives. Getting rid of

the stereo-types society has set about who plays what role in the dating world, having

harsher punishments for abusers, and education women about abuse and how unhealthy it

really is could definitely begin to impair domestic and spouse abuse.

Other than murder, rape (unconsented and/or forced sexual activity) is the worst

crime that can be committed. It is the most scaring, frightening, painful, and the most

unethical. The statistics on rape are amazing, and very surprising. 50-60% of the men

said that under certain circumstances they might force a woman into sexual acts, , The

questionnaire asked men to rate, on a scale of one to five-one was no likelihood, five

was very likely – whether they would rape a woman in they could be assured that no one

else would ever know bout it, and if they would force a woman into sexual acts if they

could be assured of no negative consequences. 5-7% of college men admit to having

done something that could be interpreted as rape although a much higher percentage of

women report to having been victimized (raped). The difference may be partly

attributable to the fact that men don t consider using a modest amount of physical force

or some form of psychological manipulation as sexual aggression he said, (article 12*)

Another extremely surprising statistic is a rape occurs every seven minutes in the

United states…This adds up to over one million rapes a year, from article 15*. I think

what makes rape an even worse crime is the amount of times it goes unreported. The

victim usually feels really guilty and dirty. Sometimes the victim blames herself or

thinks that because she is on a date, she has somehow consented to sex. Or, if the

attacker used pressure and threats rather than physical violence, she may feel she did not

fight hard enough to stop the rape, (article 15). Also, Rape victims often blame

themselves for not foreseeing- and preventing- the incident. But, counselors say, these

feelings can be the biggest obstacle to moving past the experience. Realize it was a

violation that you had no control over and shove the blame back where it belongs- on the

shoulders of the attacker, (article 15).

It is very hard to convict a person of rape because there is a fine line between rape

and sex when it comes to evidence. It is hard for medical examiners to tell if the guy

really did force sex unless there are bruises or some other obvious physical signs.

Finding sperm evidence on the woman is not enough evidence to say for sure that the

woman was raped. In my opinion, we need to make it a more comfortable situation for a

woman to report the rape. We also need to have tougher punishments for the rapist. Life

in jail, with no bail and no appeals sounds great to me. I also think that we need to make

it easier to prove that a man is guilty. Using something like a lie detector test would help

greatly in this.

Death is sometimes punishment for rape and murders. I think that the invention

of electric chair, lethal injection machine, and all other things used for the death penalty

were the stupidest things ever invented. What were these people thinking when they

invented this? Did they actually think it would work? Did they ever consider that an eye

for the eye makes the world blind, or two wrongs don t make a right? What is the point

of having the death penalty? There isn t one! It hasn t lessened the amount of crime

present in America. Giving a criminal the death penalty is giving them the easy way out.

It is doing to them exactly what we are punishing them for in a lot of instances. How can

we preach one thing but then go against it to punish someone? It would be MUCH

harder for someone to sit in a brick square with no contact with the important people in

their life, no television, limited time outside, and arduous work all day long.

These convicted sex offenders, and murderers need is life imprisonment in a

maximum security prison with no parole, and no appeals. It is outrageous the amount of

people that go into prison on a 15 year sentence and get out many years before that.

How do people expect to make changes in the amount of violence in American when

they are consistently lenient on criminals? Why should we waste our money killing

someone when we can rehabilitate them and give them a real punishment by forcing

them to live the rest of their wasted life behind bars?

My thoughts on the death penalty agree with my thoughts on other life and death

issues. I am 100% against abortion and euthanasia also. I think that the main reason I

am against abortion is because of adoption. There are so many people that dream of

having kids and find out they can t. Adoption gives them the chance to fulfill their

life-long dreams. By allowing a woman to murder her baby, her own flesh and blood, we

are throwing away thousands of people s hopes and dreams. The person that wishes to

have the abortion needs to take responsibility for getting in bed with that man. There are

many precautions she could have taken, but chose not to. It is now him and her

responsibility to let that child live. They produced it, they must care for it, even if it is

only for the 9 months of pregnancy. Even in the case of rape, I am against abortion.

That woman can give up that child just like a woman can that didn t want the child.

I am also against doctor assisted suicide. If a doctor consents to taking a patient

off of life support or prescribe a drug that will kill them, they are committing murder.

All three of these life and death issues are wrong and should be outlawed!

It would be more difficult to commit murder if it was more difficult to get

weapons. Hand guns should definitely be banned. They should be allowed only for law

enforcement and those that are involved in the armed force. Article 24* uses statistics to

prove this, Deaths caused by firearms, most of them handguns, number about 40,000

each year in the United States. More than 1,600 of them are accidents. The number of

nonfatal injuries caused by hand gun accidents is four to six times higher.. guns are the

second most deadly consumer product, after cars, on the death market..some states the

death rate related to firearms already exceeded that associated with motor vehicles.

The ownership of guns increased the risk of homicide among teens and young

adults more than threefold and the risk of suicide is more than tenfold, (article 24).

Also, the availability of a gun greatly increases the likelihood that suicide attempt will

succeed. Nationwide, firearms– mostly handguns– are used in about 19,000 suicides

each year. Among young people from 10 to 19, more than 1,400 suicides are committed

with guns each year, (article 24).

For the safety of the entire nation, hand guns need to be banned. Research

shows that playing with toy guns prompts aggression and anti-social behavior, which may

include kicking, fist fighting, pushing and shoving, damaging property, and threatening to

hurt someone, (article 25*). As we learned before anti-social behavior as a child can

result in violence later on in life. Giving a child a toy gun is setting them up for a hard

time later in life when it comes to relating to people, and is setting them up for a violent

life style. Why would any parent want to ruin their child s life like that? I wouldn t want

to, therefore my children would never be allowed to play with any toy that resembles a

gun. This includes lazor shooters and a lot of toys that are popular now-days. This

would probably cause a lot of arguing, but I know that it would help my children in the

future because providing children with imitation weapons parents are, in effect, giving

tacit approval to the kind of behavior with which guns are closely associated: violence

and aggression, (article 25). If I knew that my child s friend had toy guns in their house,

I would still let them play there, but I would make sure the friends parents knew that my

child could not play with them. Most respectable people would take the toy guns away

while my child was there.

The second amendment makes banning handguns unconstitutional, in many

people s opinions. The second amendment gives the right to a well regulated Militia,

being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear

Arms, shall not be infringed. My interpretation of this amendment is that a person has

the right to bear arms if they are protecting the security of the United States through

means of the armed forces only. When the Constitution was written violence with guns

was not a problem. Things have changed since then and so should the amendment. I

think it should read a person has the right to bear arms if it is necessary to the security of

the free state through the means of armed forces and law enforcement. This way there

would be no controversy over if we are being unconstitutional by making it illegal to

have a hand gun.

I think violence shown through the media should be regulated. When a person

turns on the television or radio they are bound to hear/see some sort of violence.

Children are viewing this and beginning to think all of this violence is okay, and

sometimes even a cool thing. If so and so artist sings this, or so and so actor kills

someone it is okay, it can t be morally unjust, is what many are beginning to think. The

media currently has the biggest impact on the growth of violence in America, I think.

Violence in television has gotten way out of hand, but due to the first amendment nothing

can be done through the judicial system. When the constitution allowed freedom of the

press I don t think that they know what would happen in the future. They never expected

songs to be about killing other people or television showing brutality.

Parent s can restrict the amount of violence, if any, that their child views by

purchasing the new v-chips. With these they can set a block that will not allow shows

with a certain rating to be viewed through their television. Also, many televisions have a

program where you can put a block on certain channels. In order to unblock the channel

you must know the code. These two things are very helpful and can diminish the amount

of violence seen through television.

Song lyrics also seem to have a lot more phrases in them that suggest or talk

about violent acts. CDs have stickers on them that say there are explicit lyrics in the

songs, but that doesn t seem to help. Music stores should have a law that says you cannot

buy a CD with this sticker on it unless you are eighteen years old. Producers should

supply CDs with the regular lyrics and CDs with edited lyrics. This way a twelve year

old child can listen to the music they enjoy without hearing the f-word every other word.

They can no longer be influenced by the type of music they enjoy. Just like we have a

rating system for television, we should have one for books, and music. Not as many kids

read books as do watch TV or listen to music, so that doesn t seem to be as big of a

problem. A problem that I see to be a lot larger than books would be the Internet and

computer games. Just look at the two boys from Columbine, constantly playing war

games on the computer and learning how to make bombs through the Internet. Somehow

the United States Government needs to regulate these games and the web sites placed on

the Internet. When it comes to my children I will definitely have restrictions on the

music they listen to, the television they watch, and what other things they do in their

spare time. I personally don t think a kid needs to see people being blown up or hear

about something shooting a cop to be entertained. If my ideas about alleviating the

amount of violence in the media happen in the next ten years I may not have to worry so

much about what restrictions I will have on my children.

Sport is set apart both cognitively and emotionally from the everyday world.

(article 29*) The way an athlete performs on the field, ice or in the ring does not reflect

they way there are as a human being. Playing the sport and the contact that goes along

with it has nothing to do with how the person acts on the streets. Contact is a major part

of the game, and I see nothing wrong with it. There is a problem, though, when the

athletes start to use their sports contact outside of the sport. There is a certain point in

which the severity of aggression is too high. Some aggressive acts are not acceptable.

The game is a game. You go out to win, but there s a line-limitations-there are

rules…You try to dominate the other player, but you don t want to make him leave the

game, supports what I am saying exactly (article 29). When a person paralyzes someone

because they tackled them something needs to be done; they need to be suspended from

the sport until they learn their lesson. It is part of the person s job as a sports figure to be

a person someone can look up to, and when things are taken too far or aggression is used

outside of the sport they aren t doing their job. Most people get fired when they don t do

their job, athletes should be fired just like everyone else. They should receive no special

treatment. Sports aren t encouraging violence in society in any way.

The three sports that have the most aggression in them are boxing, football, and

hockey. When a person signs up to play these sports they know that they are a very

physical game, and are consenting to what may happen to them while playing. I see

nothing wrong with these three sports at all. The physical contact is part of the game,

and without it what fun would it be to play and watch? I will let my children play sports

that involve physical contact but I will make sure they know the difference between what

is justified during the game, and that how they act while playing their sport will never be

allowed outside of the sport.

I don t think a person s religion makes a person for or against violence unless

they practice their religion purposely. People go to war a lot of times despite the fact that

they are Christian. People do seem to be as dedicated to their religion as they used to be,

therefore they are losing some of their morals and not following every aspect and rule of

their religion to a T . I think that the Christian commandment Thou shall not kill

means exactly what it says; don t kill-no exceptions. Even in the situation of war I don t

think that commandment allows people to kill. Therefore, I do not believe in the just war

theory. I don t believe in war period.

Religions shouldn t take a stance on things. They should let the people decide for

themselves how they feel rather than saying since you believe this you must also believe

this, because a lot of people have contrasting views now. Religion may be an important

part of people s lives because of what they believe in when it comes to a higher being,

but I don t think that it impacts every single part of their life. If Jesus were alive today I

think he would be extremely disappointed in everyone. He would probably be hurt that

people aren t following his ways to the extent he did, but things have changed a lot in

2,000 years and people can no longer be expected to follow every aspect of their religion.

Pacifism and civil disobedience have been effective many times (i.e. Ghandi, and

Martin Luther King Jr.). It can still be very effective when it is used. Ghandi and Martin

Luther King did a very brave things by trying to accomplish their goals non-violently

when the people they were against were only using violence. It seems like everyone

thinks that everything has to be solved with violence now, though.

I would have to say that I am a pacifist. IF something can be solved by means of

talking then do it. Not everything has to be solved by blowing up half a country and

killing thousands of innocent people. I would never ever go to war. I would flee to

Canada if they made it mandatory for women to fill out the draft cards. I am against war

100%. . Every minute, the world spends $1.3 million for military purposes, article 34*

claims. Some other interesting facts about what is spent for military purposes are:

The worlds stockpile of nuclear weapons represents an explosive force more than

5,000 times greater that all the munitions used in World War II.

The cost of one new nuclear submarine equals the annual education budget of 23

developing countries with 160 million school-age children. (article 34)

Why are we wasting all this time and energy on nuclear weapons when we could be

giving children a better education and educating them on how not to have war and how

to solve things peacefully. Everything can be solved nonviolently it just takes a lot more

time and effort. With how busy people s lifestyles are now, they just don t want to take

the time to sit down and work it out. I personally think that non-violent means of solving

things are a lot more productive than violent means. Look at how much Martin Luther

King Jr. accomplished in less than a year, then look at what little we have solved with the

Middle East since we went to war with them. What accomplished more? Martin Luther

King did. Non-violence accomplishes more in less time than violence does.

The United States and every other country all need to get together and sit down

and discuss calmly how they feel about things and work all their problems out. There is

no need to continue fighting. We should all be working together to make this entire

world a better place rather than being selfish and focusing only on our own country. If

we all worked things out there would no longer be international violence. This would be

a very lengthy process, but I think it would be worth it in the end. At this point getting

rid of all our nuclear weapons would be very dangerous for the United States. I am sure

that would be attacked as soon as we did it and would go to ruins. If we all agreed to do

it at the same time though I don t think there would be any surprise attacks. Not every

country is going to agree to this, though, so it is an unrealistic solution, in my opinion. I

would support the United States if they decided to disarm our country. I would probably

end up dying, but it would be worth it if the world would be peaceful in fifty years.

To get rid of each and every one of the problems mentioned above you are

going to need a wide variety of techniques. To get rid of child abuse, I first think that

spanking should be outlawed. If this happens there will be no fine line between tough

love and abuse. Any kind of hitting would be abuse. After this is done there needs to be

harsher punishments for those that are found as abusers. Counseling, stress management,

and anger management courses could be a big help. These three things could also

alleviate the high amount of spouse abuse. People also need to be educated about the

truth of spouse abuse, so women can stop making excuses as to why they are staying with

their husband.

I also think that there should be an end to capital punishment. People are getting

the easy way out when they die. They should be sent to a maximum security prison with

no parole and no chance to appeal. This would be the harshest punishment for a person.

I also think that hand guns need to be banned, but first we must change the second

amendment. After handguns are banned by everyone except the armed forces and law

enforcement that amount of guns in homes and on the streets will drop drastically. I also

think there should be a banning on toy guns, so children don t continue to get the idea

that guns are cool and okay to play with.

We also need to start controlling what is shown on television. My suggestion for

this would be to have mandatory v-chips in televisions, so parents can control what their

children watch. We should also make it mandatory for a person to be 18 years of age to

purchase a CD with an explicit lyrics sticker on it. Magazines, just like movies, should

have a rating system, and the sale of computer games promoting violence should be taken

off the market. I also think that the Internet should be controlled better, and web sites

should have to be approved before they can be made available to the general public.

I don t see a problem with the amount of aggression in sports until it exceeds

what is necessary to defend yourself or your team. What I do see a problem with is what

sports figures do in their personal lives. When an athlete does something that is against

the law they should lose the privilege of being a professional athlete. To get rid of

international violence we need to have a peace conference where all the heads of the

nations meet and work things out peacefully.

I don t really know what to predict when it comes to the future of the violence. It

seems like whenever things seem to be looking up, something happens that makes the

future of world peace look bleak. I think that if people start to care more and take action

that things can change. We can no longer sit back and expect things to get better on their

own. If any of my suggestions were to go into affect I think that a lot of the violence in

America would decrease. I think the most important thing that needs to be done is

outlawing of handguns. If this were to happen, I think the amount of violence acts would

drop 50%. Unless this happens, violence will increase.

Violence has become a problem that is way out of hand. Something needs to be

done, and fast, or our once beautiful, peaceful country will go to ruins.

Article 1: Researchers Seek Cause of American Violence. John Barbour. Article 2: Minnesota psychologists call for law banning

spanking outside the home. Article 3: To reduce US domestic abuse, outlaw spanking, as in Sweden. Jacquelin Germain.

Article 4: Should Spanking be Illegal. Shari Roan. Article 7-A: The automatic apology can never right a wrong. Robert Treuer.

Article 8: Balancing Power in domestic disputes. Ellen Goodman. Article 9: Socko Performances on Campus. Article 12:

College sex rites often involve force. Gordon Slovut. Article 15: Date Rape. Alexa Bell. Article 16: Home is most violent place,

professor says. John Murphy. Article 17-A: Study bears violence in marriages-and before. Jamie Talan. Article 24: A gun in the

home is risky business. Jane Brody. Article 25: Should Children Play with Guns. Leah Yarrow. Article 29: Values and Violence

in Sports today. Brenda Bredmeier & David Shields. Article 34: $1.3 million expended per minute for military. Associated press.