Films are often blamed as an influencing factor in violent crimes, most notably murder. People think that films have influenced a number of killers in high profile cases such as the Jamie Bulger murder, which was linked to Childs Play 3 by the press. Another was when a 14-year-old Texan boy decapitated a girl in an effort to become famous like thee stars of Natural Born Killers and Rambo was said to have influenced Michael Ryan when he shot 11 people at Hungerford in 1988. But would censoring films more radically make any difference?
We, as people, have been viewing scenes of violence for many hundreds of years, so why is it only in the last few years that scenes of violence in films are said to influence people? Scenes of violence have been depicted in Renaissance paintings, in stain glass windows and in Shakespearean plays: Macbeth is a serial killer, King Lear has his eyes gouged out, Desdemona is murdered by Othello in a jealous rage. More recently in news coverage of conflicts in Rwanda, Kosovo and Bosnia. Why are these violent scenes not mentioned as an influence?
A report, The Effects of Video Violence on Young Offenders, published by the Home Office in 1998 did conclude the following: – The implication is that both a history of family violence and offending behavior are necessary preconditions for developing a significant preference for violent film action and role models. Kevin Browne, one of the authors of the report, said the link between film violence and actual violence could not be proved but stated Nevertheless people who come from violent families and commit violent offences are more likely to lock into violent scenes, remember violent characters, and this may well influence their behavior.
Both of these sources agree that there is not a direct link between film violence and real life violence, but in contrast both agree that people with a violent family history and a record of offensive behavior might well be influenced by film violence. So with the evidence from the two previous sources, I can prove that there is no direct link between film violence and real life violence, meaning no need for more radical censorship of films. I just hate it when I sit down to watch a film and find out bits have been cut out!
Do you think there is a case for censoring films more radically than present or is this an infringement of personal liberty? Films are often blamed as an influencing factor in violent crimes, most notably murder. People think that films have influenced a number of killers in high profile cases such as the Jamie Bulger murder, which was linked to Childs Play 3 by the press. Another was when a 14-year-old Texan boy decapitated a girl in an effort to become famous like thee stars of Natural Born Killers and Rambo was said to have influenced Michael Ryan when he shot 11 people at Hungerford in 1988.
But would censoring films more radically make any difference? We, as people, have been viewing scenes of violence for many hundreds of years, so why is it only in the last few years that scenes of violence in films are said to influence people? Scenes of violence have been depicted in Renaissance paintings, in stain glass windows and in Shakespearean plays: Macbeth is a serial killer, King Lear has his eyes gouged out, Desdemona is murdered by Othello in a jealous rage. More recently in news coverage of conflicts in Rwanda, Kosovo and Bosnia. Why are these violent scenes not mentioned as an influence?
A report, The Effects of Video Violence on Young Offenders, published by the Home Office in 1998 did conclude the following: – The implication is that both a history of family violence and offending behavior are necessary preconditions for developing a significant preference for violent film action and role models. Kevin Browne, one of the authors of the report, said the link between film violence and actual violence could not be proved but stated Nevertheless people who come from violent families and commit violent offences are more likely to lock into violent scenes, remember violent characters, and this may well influence their behavior.
Both of these sources agree that there is not a direct link between film violence and real life violence, but in contrast both agree that people with a violent family history and a record of offensive behavior might well be influenced by film violence. So with the evidence from the two previous sources, I can prove that there is no direct link between film violence and real life violence, meaning no need for more radical censorship of films. I just hate it when I sit down to watch a film and find out bits have been cut out!