The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Here's (another) quote from PCZone:
"It has been revealed that playing videogames is commonplace within the penal service, and online games retailer ******** ***** has even released details of the top ten games ordered by HM prisons over the last year. It is predictably headed by the various incantations of Tomb Raider, swiftly followed by sundry Resident Evils and also includes titles such as Carmageddon and Grand Theft Auto."
In this post I'm not going to argue whether or not people in prison should be able to play games or not. In my opinion they shouldn't, prison is a place for punishment. But that's an entirely different argument, one which I'm not going to delve into here.
So, my argument is this:
Given that convicts are able to play videogames in prison, is it really a good move for them to be playing titles like GTA, Carmageddon etc? Do people lose some of their rights (apart from the obvious ones) when they get convicted? Or do they have the freedom to chose, and if they want to play violent games, or car stealing games, then they can, just like the rest of us?
These people in prison are, by law, allowed to make their own decisions. They are not medically insane, they are normal people who broke the law, therefore they can chose what they want to play. Yet some people will not want them playing games like GTA etc. So what should we do? Decide for the convicts what they can and can't play? But surely that goes against what a democracy stands for?
We all know that psychologists and people in america say that computer games are bad for you, and they can make you go out and shoot people etc. So surely the government, who are supposed to listen to important people like them, ban those sorts of games from the prisons?
Or should the government not say "Hey, ignore that Yank, games don't make you more violent, we let people in prison play them, so they must be ok." Surely one of those situations should occur. You can't, logically, have them both at the same time.
Either the games can affect people, so it would seem to be a good move to stop convicts playing them. Or games dont affect people and some government/watchdog person should say so. See?
Personally I don't think games can affect people, but I'm not 100% sure of the idea that convicts can play them. So I contradict myself. Hmmmm, bit of a puzzler that one.
I know a lot of you will just say "They're only games, let them play what they want." but if these people have a history of stealing cars, for example, is it a wise move to let them play a game where they steal cars?
What do you lot think?
"It has been revealed that playing videogames is commonplace within the penal service, and online games retailer ******** ***** has even released details of the top ten games ordered by HM prisons over the last year. It is predictably headed by the various incantations of Tomb Raider, swiftly followed by sundry Resident Evils and also includes titles such as Carmageddon and Grand Theft Auto."
In this post I'm not going to argue whether or not people in prison should be able to play games or not. In my opinion they shouldn't, prison is a place for punishment. But that's an entirely different argument, one which I'm not going to delve into here.
So, my argument is this:
Given that convicts are able to play videogames in prison, is it really a good move for them to be playing titles like GTA, Carmageddon etc? Do people lose some of their rights (apart from the obvious ones) when they get convicted? Or do they have the freedom to chose, and if they want to play violent games, or car stealing games, then they can, just like the rest of us?
These people in prison are, by law, allowed to make their own decisions. They are not medically insane, they are normal people who broke the law, therefore they can chose what they want to play. Yet some people will not want them playing games like GTA etc. So what should we do? Decide for the convicts what they can and can't play? But surely that goes against what a democracy stands for?
We all know that psychologists and people in america say that computer games are bad for you, and they can make you go out and shoot people etc. So surely the government, who are supposed to listen to important people like them, ban those sorts of games from the prisons?
Or should the government not say "Hey, ignore that Yank, games don't make you more violent, we let people in prison play them, so they must be ok." Surely one of those situations should occur. You can't, logically, have them both at the same time.
Either the games can affect people, so it would seem to be a good move to stop convicts playing them. Or games dont affect people and some government/watchdog person should say so. See?
Personally I don't think games can affect people, but I'm not 100% sure of the idea that convicts can play them. So I contradict myself. Hmmmm, bit of a puzzler that one.
I know a lot of you will just say "They're only games, let them play what they want." but if these people have a history of stealing cars, for example, is it a wise move to let them play a game where they steal cars?
What do you lot think?
Page:
Gonzo, that post about the bulgers, it was beautiful!
Don't get me started on the that whole video games causing violence rubblish - there's only so much frantic typing a keyboard can take in one evening :)
Hey, i don't know about all this. There were never any video games when i went to priso.....
Oh um i mean, er, when i visited someone! Yeah that's it...
The link between video games and violence is tenuous at best. It is only maybe evident in impressionable youngsters but certainly not in 18+year olds who obviously already know how the law works.
Oh um i mean, er, when i visited someone! Yeah that's it...
The link between video games and violence is tenuous at best. It is only maybe evident in impressionable youngsters but certainly not in 18+year olds who obviously already know how the law works.
You argue your point very well and it's backed up with alot of knowledge. I agree with you on alot of it. Guess im just old fashioned in a way. I would rather see them in a cell with a toilet and a bed and nothing else. Laws are there to be obeyed and if you break them then whatever happens to you in jail is a result of you breaking these laws.
Rather tentative link to games playing all this :)
Yes but you can't put yourself in the victims shoes as then thoughts of revenge and basically just anger clouds your judgement. Nemo juducia en su casa - you can't be the judge in a matter in which you have a vested interest - one of the basic rules of Natural Law.
I'm a Law (and Accountancy, but the second strand isn’t relative here) Student - I've studied these matters and from an informed opinion have very strong views on them. By saying that I'm not saying that my opinion counts as more than yours or anything, just I still think you are looking at prison in a skewed manner and I’m attempting to explain my probably over passionate arguing.
The Buldger killers. Sure, they could watch TV and all the other things you say, but could they have a hug from their Mum when they felt like it? Could they run around in the park playing football of an afternoon? Could they meet a girl and enjoy the foolish bliss of teenage "love"? Did they enjoy those Christmases and Birthdays locked away from loved ones and so very alone? Could you even being to imagine being locked away from everyone you love and being withheld inside the same four walls for your formatitive years? Do you really think a trip to Old Trafford would make up for that?
The perks you mention are given to well behaved inmates. Rewards like these are vital to show a prisoner (or offender in the cases of the Buldger killers) that they are on the right track – much like you’d give a dog a treat when trying to teach it to roll over, not that I’m equating prisoners to dogs of course. They are also short-term goals to stop the mind going mad, as it would if the only goal was release 24 years (or whatever) down the line. Do you think your mind could cope if all it had to look forward to was that far away? Imagine how long you’ve been alive for. Now imagine having spent that entire time with people you don’t really know in a violent atmosphere with no one who really cares for you. Would a TV make up for that?
I can’t stress enough how important rehabilitation over punishment is. It’s clear there is a huge element of punishment there, but over and above that the goal should always be rehabilitation. Punishment is the deterrent and it is there. However, while you’ve got the criminals locked up and going no where for a long time can you not see how important it is to attempt to stop them re-offending? Why release the same person you locked up at all? Prisoners do teach others new tricks, it’s an accepted fact, and so when they are released the temptation will be even higher. Rehabilitation is the only way you can hope to stop mass re-offending. Ideally you’ll teach a criminal that what they did was wrong and why. The realisation of this may lead to mental problems and depression that may need a professional Psychiatrist and/or a course of drugs. Then you’ve got a clean slate and you want to teach that person all you can to make them an employable individual who can make a positive difference to their community.
Aside from all that, the reasons behind crime are varied. Would you treat someone who repeatedly shoplifts to feed a drug habit (in other words, an illness) in the same manner as a cold, calculated paedophile that kidnaps, rapes and brutally murders a couple of kids? No! This is why some prisoners have TVs and computer games and others don’t. I don’t think any prisoner lives in the utopian prison you describe, but some undoubtedly do have perks. This is because there are different classes of crime, hence different classes of criminal, and hence different classes of punishment.
Again, I’m letting my keyboard run away with me. I really don’t think this is the place for such a topic to be dealt with but will gladly respond to any comments you have.
I'm a Law (and Accountancy, but the second strand isn’t relative here) Student - I've studied these matters and from an informed opinion have very strong views on them. By saying that I'm not saying that my opinion counts as more than yours or anything, just I still think you are looking at prison in a skewed manner and I’m attempting to explain my probably over passionate arguing.
The Buldger killers. Sure, they could watch TV and all the other things you say, but could they have a hug from their Mum when they felt like it? Could they run around in the park playing football of an afternoon? Could they meet a girl and enjoy the foolish bliss of teenage "love"? Did they enjoy those Christmases and Birthdays locked away from loved ones and so very alone? Could you even being to imagine being locked away from everyone you love and being withheld inside the same four walls for your formatitive years? Do you really think a trip to Old Trafford would make up for that?
The perks you mention are given to well behaved inmates. Rewards like these are vital to show a prisoner (or offender in the cases of the Buldger killers) that they are on the right track – much like you’d give a dog a treat when trying to teach it to roll over, not that I’m equating prisoners to dogs of course. They are also short-term goals to stop the mind going mad, as it would if the only goal was release 24 years (or whatever) down the line. Do you think your mind could cope if all it had to look forward to was that far away? Imagine how long you’ve been alive for. Now imagine having spent that entire time with people you don’t really know in a violent atmosphere with no one who really cares for you. Would a TV make up for that?
I can’t stress enough how important rehabilitation over punishment is. It’s clear there is a huge element of punishment there, but over and above that the goal should always be rehabilitation. Punishment is the deterrent and it is there. However, while you’ve got the criminals locked up and going no where for a long time can you not see how important it is to attempt to stop them re-offending? Why release the same person you locked up at all? Prisoners do teach others new tricks, it’s an accepted fact, and so when they are released the temptation will be even higher. Rehabilitation is the only way you can hope to stop mass re-offending. Ideally you’ll teach a criminal that what they did was wrong and why. The realisation of this may lead to mental problems and depression that may need a professional Psychiatrist and/or a course of drugs. Then you’ve got a clean slate and you want to teach that person all you can to make them an employable individual who can make a positive difference to their community.
Aside from all that, the reasons behind crime are varied. Would you treat someone who repeatedly shoplifts to feed a drug habit (in other words, an illness) in the same manner as a cold, calculated paedophile that kidnaps, rapes and brutally murders a couple of kids? No! This is why some prisoners have TVs and computer games and others don’t. I don’t think any prisoner lives in the utopian prison you describe, but some undoubtedly do have perks. This is because there are different classes of crime, hence different classes of criminal, and hence different classes of punishment.
Again, I’m letting my keyboard run away with me. I really don’t think this is the place for such a topic to be dealt with but will gladly respond to any comments you have.
my beliefs are that If you comit a crime you should be sent to prison for the appropriate time. In prison you should be punished for your crimes not rewarded as some prisoners seem to be. Take the 2 boys who killed Jamie Bulger. That shocked the world and they where allowed to go to Man U games, theme parks. Ok they may be young but should they be allowed treatment that many of us can only dream about doing or have to work hard to get.
I agree that they should be helped so that when they are released they have changed for the better. But put yourself in a victims shoes, say a loved one of yours got raped, murdered or some other horrible attack. I bet you would want them to suffer alot more than you and their victim did. You wouldn't want them to be sitting in a room watching tv and playing video games while you try put you life back together.
I agree that they should be helped so that when they are released they have changed for the better. But put yourself in a victims shoes, say a loved one of yours got raped, murdered or some other horrible attack. I bet you would want them to suffer alot more than you and their victim did. You wouldn't want them to be sitting in a room watching tv and playing video games while you try put you life back together.
AliBoy wrote:
> In the middle east
> if you are caught stealing your hands are removed, over
> here you get
> fined or sent to jail for a while.
The Middle East: great role models there. Lets chain our wives to the kitchen and feel the sharp end of an agressive Dictator and National poverty.
You all missed my point, prison should be rehabilative more than a punishment. Otherwise you lock up the same person you let out and the whole exercise is a waste of time and money.
Also, at the end of the day prison still removes your liberty. No amount of TV makes up for that.
> In the middle east
> if you are caught stealing your hands are removed, over
> here you get
> fined or sent to jail for a while.
The Middle East: great role models there. Lets chain our wives to the kitchen and feel the sharp end of an agressive Dictator and National poverty.
You all missed my point, prison should be rehabilative more than a punishment. Otherwise you lock up the same person you let out and the whole exercise is a waste of time and money.
Also, at the end of the day prison still removes your liberty. No amount of TV makes up for that.
Just lay Sex, Drugs and Videogames on those prison suckas!
Your Honour wrote:
I would guess that the life in prison is better
> than some people have outside.
Of course, I could be wrong.
People inside do have a better life than alot of people, homeless people and poor people have to scrape by why criminals seem to live in comfortable cells and have relaxation rooms with tv's and now video games.
The british criminal system in my view is bad, why should rapists, murderers, thiefs and other criminals get treated better than alot of decent people with problems.
In the middle east if you are caught stealing your hands are removed, over here you get fined or sent to jail for a while.
I live in a town with its own prison and alot of people from the poorer areas deliberately break the law to get sent to court so they can ask to be sent to jail as life inside is of a higher standard than their own. No wonder prisons are crowded, we treat them too good. All their luxuries should be removed. They should be punished for their crimes not treated like we are glad of what they have done.
I would guess that the life in prison is better
> than some people have outside.
Of course, I could be wrong.
People inside do have a better life than alot of people, homeless people and poor people have to scrape by why criminals seem to live in comfortable cells and have relaxation rooms with tv's and now video games.
The british criminal system in my view is bad, why should rapists, murderers, thiefs and other criminals get treated better than alot of decent people with problems.
In the middle east if you are caught stealing your hands are removed, over here you get fined or sent to jail for a while.
I live in a town with its own prison and alot of people from the poorer areas deliberately break the law to get sent to court so they can ask to be sent to jail as life inside is of a higher standard than their own. No wonder prisons are crowded, we treat them too good. All their luxuries should be removed. They should be punished for their crimes not treated like we are glad of what they have done.
Page: