The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Manhunt'.
As some of you may be aware, a 14 year old schoolboy, Stefan Pakeerah, was taken to a park where he was brutally mudered by his so called ‘friend’, 17 year old Warren Leblanc. He beat him with a claw hammer and stabbed him after luring him to a park with the intention of robbing him.
This isn’t just a typical juvenile murder case though. This case seems to have had further implications due to the short term logic of the victim’s parents and their quest to wreak vengeance on the interactive entertainment medium which has so often been falsely accused of causing various crimes in America (until futher investigation has found psychological problems and swastikas as part of the criminal’s background). Videogame retailer Game and various other big name stores such as PC World, Dixons, and Currys have indefinitely removed the game from sale. Is this taking things too far?
Patrick Pakeerah, Stefan's father made this statement about Manhunt, “It's a video instruction on how to murder somebody, it just shows how you kill people and what weapons you use.” So my question is this: National Service. It trained people for war, taught them how to kill efficiently with various weaponry and was compulsory for most youths to undertake many decades ago. How come that now National Service has been abolished, the general community has become disrespectful, self centred and generally rude in comparison to past standards? And more importantly, how come crime levels have risen dramatically? You can use the argument that a higher percentage of crimes are being reported nowadays, but I think it is fair to say that there was less crime fifty years ago than there is today.
The Doom series was once the blame of murders. Blowing up creatures from hell with a choice of seven weapons to kill these creatures that were clearly not human – even the zombie humans with their green hair and military style uniform, was blamed for the actions committed by modern-Nazi kids. That game was originally rated by the BBFC as an 18, is now rated 15 and on the Game Boy Advance has no official age rating except for the advisory 15+ by ELSPA.
Videogames are not the cause of crime. As I have already mentioned, Warren Leblanc initially had the intention of robbing his ‘friend’ and took things a stage too far. Was the reason purely because he had learnt how to do what comes natural to us? He’d learnt to kill through playing games? Or was it more to do with primal instincts, sharp implements and a general urge to cause harm regardless? I have seen some very gruesome movies in my time and none of them have been put to blame. Instead, a game that 17 year old Warren Leblanc should not have been able to acquire has been selected and blamed for Stefan Pakeerah’s death. It’s like going back to ancient times:
The Athenians weren’t as ruthless as the Spartans. But they had their own funny little ways. One of the strangest customs of the Athenians involved the sacrifice of an ox in the temple. Killing the ox wasn’t strange in itself. It’s what the Athenians did afterwards that was curious. They held a trial to decide, “Who killed the ox?”
‘I blame the girls who carried the water that sharpened the axe!’
‘We blame the man who sharpened the axe and the knife.’
‘I blame the man who took the knife and the axe.’
‘I blame the man who it the ox with the axe.’
‘I blame the man who stabbed the ox with the knife.’
‘What have you got to say for yourself, knife?’
‘In that case I find the knife guilty of the ox’s murder. I sentence the knife to death by drowning. Throw the knife in the sea.’
- Horrible Histories: The Groovy Greeks 1996 publication authored by Terry Deary published by Scholastic.
What the above taken from a children’s history book shows is how the Athenians used to pass sentences to the most ridiculous things for the causes of various crimes. It was never the fault of the actual person who committed the crime, but the fault of the implement for existing, despite probably being crafted by man in the first place.
You read that and you think, “That was strange”. Partially due to Terry Deary’s suggestion that it is a strange custom, but more so because you have some common sense in your head. That common sense tells you that an inanimate object can not cause the crime by itself, but requires the physical instruction by a person to commit the offence. In short, there is no way the knife could have caused the murder of the ox by itself. So why is Manhunt being blamed?
Manhunt is being blamed as the scapegoat for the murder. It wasn’t directly responsible and according to the Electronic and Leisure Publishers Association, ELSPA, there was no ‘suggestion or association between the tragic events and the sale of the video game Manhunt.’ Apparently, Warren Leblanc had been playing Manhunt a lot and therefore being a person who is able to make his own decisions, he wasn’t able to decipher the differences between what is right and wrong, what is a videogame and what is life when he committed the crime. The fact is, he is seventeen! Most kids have some sense of right and wrong from a very young age, even those of today’s day and age where the majority of parents reward juvenile behaviour and encourage it.
There are many factors that need to be considered before you make a decision though:
1. How was he able to acquire Manhunt? The game is rated 18 by the BBFC. So was the store that sold it to him partially responsible?
2. If it was his parents that bought it for him, do they have a sense of responsibility of their own, or did they decide that these age ratings weren’t applicable to their son, just everyone elses?
3. If instead of saveagely beating his ‘friend’, Warren Leblanc instead stole a car, ran over an old lady, flattened his mate and then stole his money, would Grand Theft Auto, also by Rockstar, be blamed?
The thing is, it only took me a few seconds to think up, and a few more to type those three variables. There are so many involved that to me make it impossible for Manhunt to be blamed. I can understand it maybe being taken off the shelves temporarily, but all I can see is this game becoming more sought after by the teens and selling in huge quanities by other retailers who have not opted to remove the game from sale. A permanent banning by these stores would be an insult to censorship boards.
So did Manhunt kill Stefan Pakeerah or did Warren Leblanc?
(sources: www.bbc.co.uk and The Groovy Greeks published by Scholastic)
This isn’t just a typical juvenile murder case though. This case seems to have had further implications due to the short term logic of the victim’s parents and their quest to wreak vengeance on the interactive entertainment medium which has so often been falsely accused of causing various crimes in America (until futher investigation has found psychological problems and swastikas as part of the criminal’s background). Videogame retailer Game and various other big name stores such as PC World, Dixons, and Currys have indefinitely removed the game from sale. Is this taking things too far?
Patrick Pakeerah, Stefan's father made this statement about Manhunt, “It's a video instruction on how to murder somebody, it just shows how you kill people and what weapons you use.” So my question is this: National Service. It trained people for war, taught them how to kill efficiently with various weaponry and was compulsory for most youths to undertake many decades ago. How come that now National Service has been abolished, the general community has become disrespectful, self centred and generally rude in comparison to past standards? And more importantly, how come crime levels have risen dramatically? You can use the argument that a higher percentage of crimes are being reported nowadays, but I think it is fair to say that there was less crime fifty years ago than there is today.
The Doom series was once the blame of murders. Blowing up creatures from hell with a choice of seven weapons to kill these creatures that were clearly not human – even the zombie humans with their green hair and military style uniform, was blamed for the actions committed by modern-Nazi kids. That game was originally rated by the BBFC as an 18, is now rated 15 and on the Game Boy Advance has no official age rating except for the advisory 15+ by ELSPA.
Videogames are not the cause of crime. As I have already mentioned, Warren Leblanc initially had the intention of robbing his ‘friend’ and took things a stage too far. Was the reason purely because he had learnt how to do what comes natural to us? He’d learnt to kill through playing games? Or was it more to do with primal instincts, sharp implements and a general urge to cause harm regardless? I have seen some very gruesome movies in my time and none of them have been put to blame. Instead, a game that 17 year old Warren Leblanc should not have been able to acquire has been selected and blamed for Stefan Pakeerah’s death. It’s like going back to ancient times:
The Athenians weren’t as ruthless as the Spartans. But they had their own funny little ways. One of the strangest customs of the Athenians involved the sacrifice of an ox in the temple. Killing the ox wasn’t strange in itself. It’s what the Athenians did afterwards that was curious. They held a trial to decide, “Who killed the ox?”
‘I blame the girls who carried the water that sharpened the axe!’
‘We blame the man who sharpened the axe and the knife.’
‘I blame the man who took the knife and the axe.’
‘I blame the man who it the ox with the axe.’
‘I blame the man who stabbed the ox with the knife.’
‘What have you got to say for yourself, knife?’
‘In that case I find the knife guilty of the ox’s murder. I sentence the knife to death by drowning. Throw the knife in the sea.’
- Horrible Histories: The Groovy Greeks 1996 publication authored by Terry Deary published by Scholastic.
What the above taken from a children’s history book shows is how the Athenians used to pass sentences to the most ridiculous things for the causes of various crimes. It was never the fault of the actual person who committed the crime, but the fault of the implement for existing, despite probably being crafted by man in the first place.
You read that and you think, “That was strange”. Partially due to Terry Deary’s suggestion that it is a strange custom, but more so because you have some common sense in your head. That common sense tells you that an inanimate object can not cause the crime by itself, but requires the physical instruction by a person to commit the offence. In short, there is no way the knife could have caused the murder of the ox by itself. So why is Manhunt being blamed?
Manhunt is being blamed as the scapegoat for the murder. It wasn’t directly responsible and according to the Electronic and Leisure Publishers Association, ELSPA, there was no ‘suggestion or association between the tragic events and the sale of the video game Manhunt.’ Apparently, Warren Leblanc had been playing Manhunt a lot and therefore being a person who is able to make his own decisions, he wasn’t able to decipher the differences between what is right and wrong, what is a videogame and what is life when he committed the crime. The fact is, he is seventeen! Most kids have some sense of right and wrong from a very young age, even those of today’s day and age where the majority of parents reward juvenile behaviour and encourage it.
There are many factors that need to be considered before you make a decision though:
1. How was he able to acquire Manhunt? The game is rated 18 by the BBFC. So was the store that sold it to him partially responsible?
2. If it was his parents that bought it for him, do they have a sense of responsibility of their own, or did they decide that these age ratings weren’t applicable to their son, just everyone elses?
3. If instead of saveagely beating his ‘friend’, Warren Leblanc instead stole a car, ran over an old lady, flattened his mate and then stole his money, would Grand Theft Auto, also by Rockstar, be blamed?
The thing is, it only took me a few seconds to think up, and a few more to type those three variables. There are so many involved that to me make it impossible for Manhunt to be blamed. I can understand it maybe being taken off the shelves temporarily, but all I can see is this game becoming more sought after by the teens and selling in huge quanities by other retailers who have not opted to remove the game from sale. A permanent banning by these stores would be an insult to censorship boards.
So did Manhunt kill Stefan Pakeerah or did Warren Leblanc?
(sources: www.bbc.co.uk and The Groovy Greeks published by Scholastic)
Page:
Manhunt would be an influence, though oonly a minor one. Most people are not influenced by the game at all; but some of course will be. It's hard to determine whether a person can be affected or not, as some 18 rated games are suitable for a 13 year old while shouldn't be played by a 22 year old. It's the mental differences and development that lie internally that decide it to be a turnpoint factor.
However, in this case, we can safely say that the game had no influence on the victim; the police declaring itself that it was just a game lying on the floor of the killer's victim (or something along those lines) is enough to say so, regardless of the media's usual "make things up to incite conflict" protocol that they so often use.
Good post, by the way.
However, in this case, we can safely say that the game had no influence on the victim; the police declaring itself that it was just a game lying on the floor of the killer's victim (or something along those lines) is enough to say so, regardless of the media's usual "make things up to incite conflict" protocol that they so often use.
Good post, by the way.
Heh - makes it seem even more ironic for the parents to criticise the game and the developer.
I was sure the papers and news etc. said the police reported both the boys having the game. They found the killer's copy first and then the victims at a later date.
Except the killer didn't have Manhunt. It was the victim, as reported by the police. Yet the press ignored all that.
There seem to be many faults with the age system,
1) Parents buying it for their children
2) The internet. You could easily just get away with buying anything, but there isn't any way of doing it really is there?
EDIT - Typo
1) Parents buying it for their children
2) The internet. You could easily just get away with buying anything, but there isn't any way of doing it really is there?
EDIT - Typo
I put it down to two possibilities:
Poor service from the store bought.
A lack of responsibility from the parents of the 17 year old.
I don't care how many people say, "Well everyone else lets their kids play these games", the ratings are there for a reason. It only takes one responsible parent to make a difference and it seems in this case, it wasn't the parent or the shops fault, it was the game's fault - which is utter rubbish.
Poor service from the store bought.
A lack of responsibility from the parents of the 17 year old.
I don't care how many people say, "Well everyone else lets their kids play these games", the ratings are there for a reason. It only takes one responsible parent to make a difference and it seems in this case, it wasn't the parent or the shops fault, it was the game's fault - which is utter rubbish.
Why was an 18 rated game in the hands of what seems to be a mentally disturbed 17 year old? Too many 'kids' are getting hold of 18 rated games. My friend used to work in a video game shop, and he said that he saw many parents buy the likes of Vice City (18 rated game) and hand it to their 9 year old son.
Clearly that shouldn't happen. Is there even a way to stop it? A 18 certificate is there for a reason. That reason simply is: If it contains material of an offensive nature, then it shouldn't belong to anyone younger than stated on the box.
Clearly that shouldn't happen. Is there even a way to stop it? A 18 certificate is there for a reason. That reason simply is: If it contains material of an offensive nature, then it shouldn't belong to anyone younger than stated on the box.
If the 17 year old had access to fake ID, which most 17 year olds do, then providing the store he bought it from, assuming he bought it, performed all the right checks then the store could not be put to blame.
Edgy wrote:
> But who bought it? Him or his parents?
I don't know. Either way the games comany as a whole can't be to blame. Either the parents can hang themselves or sue the shop the lad bought the game. Oh, and by the way they won't win their case.
> But who bought it? Him or his parents?
I don't know. Either way the games comany as a whole can't be to blame. Either the parents can hang themselves or sue the shop the lad bought the game. Oh, and by the way they won't win their case.
"Game" thats all it is.
People go too far and spoil it for everyone else. Its not the Developers that should get the blame, these people aren't even old enough to play the game according to its liscence. Yet they get their hands on it from some trumpet at the counter who could'nt care less if a two year old popped up to the till with a porn movie.
People go too far and spoil it for everyone else. Its not the Developers that should get the blame, these people aren't even old enough to play the game according to its liscence. Yet they get their hands on it from some trumpet at the counter who could'nt care less if a two year old popped up to the till with a porn movie.
Page: