Crime Essay, Research Paper

Violence: Does It Have an Effect?

By: KL

Watching violence in movies increases the risk of some people’s acting aggressively. Many people

have problems linking media violence with violence in real-life. Only small percentages that watch

violence are responsible for violent acts. Most people unaffected by it. Even though doctors,

lawyers, juries, and judges cannot establish a direct link between media violence with violence in

society, they still can make conclusions from data. Media violence is one thing that causes people

to do violence. Since media violence is much more vicious than that which children normally

experience, real-life aggression appears bland by comparison. Children do not always realize this is

not the way things are handled in real-life. They come to expect it, and when they do not see it the

world becomes bland and in need of violence. The children then can create the violence that their

mind craves (Door 127). Another thing that increases the risk of violence is watching another

person praising it. Parents who solve their problems with violence are teaching their children to do

the same. Barbara Escamilla, an Omaha counselor and social worker, said, “Fathers who laugh and

cheer at violent action movies are condoning such actions….” Another counselor from Omaha said,

“If a kid hears his dad laughing about having beat somebody up when he was 13, then that father is

creating an underlying philosophy in the family.” Joseph Stankus, an Omaha psychologist, said,

“If sombody doesn’t show any regard for the results of violence, then maybe you give it to them”

(qtd. in Nelson np). Watching violence and listening to others talk about violence can lead to

aggression. Some places are more admissible of aggression than others. Aggressive behavior was

more acceptable in the city, where a child’s popularity rating with classmates was not hampered by

his or her aggression. In bigger cities, crime and violence are inevitable, expected, and therefore, are

left unchecked and out of line. In other research among U.S. children, it was discovered that

aggression, academic problems, unpopularity with peers, and violence feed off each other. This

promotes violent behavior in the children. A child watches violence without evening knowing that it

could lead to aggression (Huesmann 166). Many studies have taken place over the years to see to

see effects on violence were. In a CNN News broadcast, Lisa Price and the Associated Press speak

some studies. The first one was an eight-year by Doctor Brandon Centerwall of the University of

Washington. Statistics from this study show that “long-term exposure of children to television

violence has led to an increase of an extra ten thousand homicides a year in the U.S.. The American

Medical Association found that violent crime between the years 1976 and 1992 among 13 and 17

year-old teenagers rose 106 percent, and the violence in the media had something to do with it (np).

Another study revealed that people… “are more prone to hold attitudes that favor violence and

aggression as a way of solving conflicts.” These viewers also tend to be less trusting of people and

more prone to see the world as a hostile place. A Massachusetts study states, “There is a

relationship between viewing media violence and the acceptance of sexual assault, violence and

alcohol use. As a result, specific levels of violence become more acceptable over time. Then, it takes

more and more graphic violence to shock (and hold) an audience” (Rund np). In an experiment on

television violence on memory for commercial messages, participants saw commercials embedded

in violent and nonviolent film clips. After viewing clips, participants completed several recall and

recognition memory test. In all the experiments, participants who saw a violent film clip had poorer

memory for commercial than did participants who saw nonviolent film clips. Participants also

reported their mood after viewing a film clip but before completing the memory tests. Anger

mediated between television violence and commercial memory. Television violence increased anger,

and anger, in turn, impaired memory for commercials (Bushman np). Over the years, violence in

movies has influenced people so much that crimes have been committed. These crimes have been

brought to court, even to the Supreme Court. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that extremely

violent movie, such as, “Natural Born Killers” and “Menace II [sic] Society” is permitted to be

watched by the jury in murder trials. The reason behind this is to prove defendants were inspired

by Hollywood to commit real mayhem. Greg Torre, director of Georgia Film and Video

Commission, said, “This ruling does not sit with me well. If an individual is going to commit a

crime, I do not think it takes a movie to do it.” Justice Norman Fletcher wrote dissents to both

rulings, saying, “Violence in movies is prejudicial and unnecessary in light of corroborating

evidence. The movie thus served as a dramatic state witness who blurred fact and fiction but who

wasn’t subject to cross-examination” (Rakin np). In another trial, Justice Harris Hines wrote in a

four to three decision upholding a Worth County murder conviction, “Evidence of a movie in a

criminal defendant’s possession that depicts the conduct with which the defendant is charged may

be admissible.” During the Worth County trial, the jury watched “Menace II [sic] Society.” The

defendant owned this movie and watched it at least six times. “The film opens with ‘O-Dog’ fatally

shooting two convenience store clerks and taking the store’s surveillance videotape. Gerald Rushin

shot and killed a store clerk in 1995 and took the surveillance tape” (Rakin np). Later, the

surveillance tape was used to rebut Rushin’s argument that the fatality was accidental. The trial’s

judge said, “The real purpose of the movie was to provide a more explicit visual picture of the

state’s theory that Rushin committed crimes similar to the movie’s crimes” (Rakin np). In the film

“Natural Born Killers,” fifty-two people are killed by a man and his girlfriend on a three month

killing spree. Ronnie Jack Beasley Jr. and his girlfriend have seen this movie about twenty times.

Beasley was put in trial for a murder committed in a robbery in 1995. He sometimes called himself

“The Natural.” The jury of this case watched this film during the trial. Professor Robert Pugsley of

Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles said, “The visceral impact that one

experiences in seeing a mindless, bloodthirsty film like ‘Natural Born Killers’ can have a

far-reaching, inflammatory impact. You are a truly monstrous example, a caricature, and showing

this person kill fifty-two while asking the jury to convict the defendant of one. This constitutes

overkill” (qtd. in Rakin np). In another court case, Eric Jeleniewski, 20, and his two friends, James

Grant, and Christopher Doucette, were put on trial for the murders of Kimberly Farrah, 18, and

Leeann Millius, 17. The day of the killings, the three friends had no money and no place to stay, so

they decided to go to Leeann’s house unannounced. James told police that Eric asked him and the

girls to play a game based on the “comic horror” movie “Scream.” Those playing the game would

act out scenes from the movie in which two teenage boys kill teenage girls and others in their town

for no reason. “The thrill of the chase” was not enough for Erin. He decided to go after what he

saw was “the ultimate kick,” killing a person (Murphy np). Several hours after playing “Scream,”

Eric kicked and stabbed Kimberly to death. At Eric’s orders, James and Christopher stabbed

Leeann to death a while later. On October 26, 1998, the jury of this case, after eight and one

half-hours deliberation, to find Eric guilty of killing Kimberly, they convicted him with first-degree

murder (Murphy np). With all these movies leading people to aggression, violence, and murder, the

American Medical Association says, “Destructive behavior in real life follows television and movie

violence like night and day” (qtd. in Price np). Since then, they have released guidelines to help

doctors talk to parents about viewing habits. Each state’s attorney general along with 60,000

doctors received pamphlets with all the information on it. Also, they are pressuring the

entertainment industry to do something about it. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)

disregards all the criticism coming their way. “Broadcasters and programmers have voluntarily

agreed to rate every program not only for violent content, but also for other objectionable material.

The limiting of children’s exposure to violent programming will help stop the spread of violence on

the street,” the NAB said in a statement (qtd. in Price np). Some psychologists and psychiatrists

believe that continued exposure to violence might unnaturally speed up the impact of the adult

world on the child. As these children mature, they can become bewildered, have a greater distrust

towards others, a superficial approach to problems, and even an unwillingness to become an adult

(Carter np). Some counselors say, “As children become older, age-appropriate television, movies,

and news can begin to be used as learning moments” (qtd. in Nelson np). Every November a day is

set aside for TURN OFF THE VIOLENCE. The Minnesota Citizen’s Counsel on Crime and

Justice founded this. They said, “Celebrating a day of non-violence helps give individuals and

communities an opportunity to reaffirm positive healthy attitudes and actions, and take a positive

step for change” (qtd. in “You Can Make A Difference” np). They say that parents should sit down

with their children and discuss a film they have watched together to help decrease a violent

imagination. Violence does have an effect on some young children and young adults. The studies

in this paper proved that violence has a variety of effects on people. Cases have been brought to

court relating to movie violence and their effects. People have been murdered without a worthy

cause like for fun. Some things are being done to make an awareness of this violence, such as,

TURN OFF THE VIOLENCE day and censorship. What is happening now will continue to

happen in the future if people do not try to help.

Bibliography

Bushman, Brad J., “Effects of Television Violence on Memory for Commercial Messages.”

Journal of Experimental Psychology Vol.4, No.4(Dec. 1998): 6 pp. On-line. Internet. 2 Feb. 1999.

Available WWW: http://www.apa.org/journals/xap/xap44291.html. Carter, Douglas. T.V. Violence

and the Child. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 1977. Husemann, L. Rowell. “Social Channels

Tune TV’s Effects”. Science News. 14 Sept. 1985: 166. Murphy, Bill. “Killer Gets Life, No

Parole: ‘Take Him Out,’ Disgusted Judge Says.” The Eagle Tribune. 27 Oct., 1998. C.D.

Newsbank. Nelson, Robert. “Should violence Be Kid’s Stuff? Midlands Counselor Say Children

Are Unable to Deal with the Significance of Graphic Films Such As “Saving Private Ryan.”"

Omaha World-Herald. 28 July, 1998: 29sf. C.D. Newsbank. Price, Lisa and Associated Press.

“Parents Must Ration TV to Cut Teen-Age Violence: Prescription from the Nation’s Doctors.”

CNN News. (9 Sept. 1996). On-line. Internet. 3 Feb 1999. Available:

http://ww2.cnn.com/HEALTH/9609/09/nfm/ama.violence/ Rakin, Bill. “Court: Let Jury See Film

Violence. Movies Admissible to Reflect ‘bent of Mind.’” The Atlanta Journal and the Atlanta

Constitution. 14 July, 1998: A01. C.D. Newsbank.

311