Violence

Domestic abuse in the United States is a large-scale and complex social and health problem. The family is perhaps the most violent group, with the home being the most violent American institution or setting today (Lay, 1994). Sadly enough, the majority of people who are murdered are not likely killed by a stranger during a hold-up or similar crime but are killed by someone they know. Not surprisingly, the Center for Disease Control and prevention has identified interpersonal violence as a major public health problem (Velson-Friedrich, 1994).

Current estimates suggest that three to four million women are the victims of physical abuse by their intimate partners (Harris & Cook, 1994). According to the FBI, some form of domestic violence occurs in half of the homes in the United States at least once a year (Dickstein, 1988). In reality one out of every six marriages the wife is physically abused. Every fifteen seconds a women is battered in the United States. Daily, four American women lose their lives to their husbands or boyfriends, equaling more than one-third of all female homicide victims (WAC, 1994).

These numbers report that too much violence is directed toward women. Historically, domestic violence has been a downplayed and, oftentimes, culturally condoned, American tradition. In the colonial period, laws derived from English common-law permitted a man to beat his wife when she acted in a manner that he believed to be inappropriate. For example, the so-called Rule of Thumb law, which permitted a husband to beat his wife with a stick that could be no larger than the circumference of his thumb, was in effect until the end of the nineteenth century (Dickstein, 1988).

The issue of domestic violence, especially wife abuse, first gained national attention in 1974 with the publishing of Scream Quietly or the Neighbors Will Hear by Erin Pizzey, the founder of Chiswicks Womens Aid, a shelter in England for battered women. Pizzeys work helped to stimulate feminist concern and outrage over wife beating, verbal abuse, financial restrictions and social isolation of women by their husbands (Utech, 1994). Shortly thereafter, the womens liberation movement, through the National Organization for Women (NOW), advocated for the end of violence against women and sought improved social services for battered wives.

NOW also was actively engaged in promoting shelter homes and lobbying congressional leaders for legislation that would result in better treatment and protection of womens health and well-being (Utech, 1994). The medical profession was greatly affected by the advocacy of the womens liberation movement and has, in recent years, attempted to combat this social ill both by itself and in coordination with the legal and social service professions.

For example, beginning in 1992, the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations, required that all accredited hospitals implement policies and procedures for identifying, treating and referring victims of abuse (Mason, 1993). This included in-service training programs for staff members of their emergency departments and ambulatory care facilities (Mason, 1993). In 1994, 83 organizations, including the American Nurses Association and the American Bar Association, met to identify gaps and barriers between the health care delivery and criminal justice systems in dealing with family violence cases.

Among their recommendations were the following: a mechanism for community professional coordination in assessment to maximize family safety; the creation of community-based family violence coordination councils; and the need to establish, in every community, a comprehensive, culturally sensitive, and accessible intervention system for family violence that links health, justice, mental health, social service, and educational systems (Stanley, 1994).

In addition, the American Medical Association (AMA) published guidelines for Health care professionals to use in identifying domestic violence victims. Violent families are easy to describe but difficult to explain. Research on family abuse has, on a consistent basis, found that the phenomenon is associated with intergenerational transmission, low socioeconomic status, social and structural stress, social isolation, and personality problems or psychopathology (Yegidis, 1992).

Traditional theories on the causes of domestic abuse focus on such factors as peoples individual characteristics and life experiences, including the presence of problems such as social and structural stress, social alienation, unemployment, poverty, substance abuse, past child abuse, personality disorders, psychopathology, and depression (Yegidis, 1992). However, theories centered on these variables fail to explain why the majority of the population that does not experience domestic abuse, whether as a victim or a perpetrator, are not affected by these variables.

Additionally, research has demonstrated the elimination of personal problems, such as the ones listed above, does not contribute to ending domestic abuse in a relationship. Nevertheless, for the purpose of framing particular studies of domestic abuse, these theoretical approaches are still important. Due to each theorys weakness, it is important for researchers to adopt a theoretically holistic approach. The fact that each case of domestic abuse is somewhat different form another calls for using a variety of theoretical orientations to better examine the nature and extent of this pressing problem.

While domestic abuse can be studied through mental lenses that are psychological or sociological in nature, it is important also to examine this issue from a medical/public health perspective. While many theories have been proposed to explain the causes of family abuse, one of the most useful has been the social learning theory. Bandura (1977) proposed that learning be composed of both a modeling component and reciprocal influence. The latter suggests that we can shape our futures by influencing our environments.

In explaining how social learning theory explains family abuse, OLeary (1988) analyzed the effects of modeling on behavior, the role of stress, the use of alcohol, the presence of relationship dissatisfaction, and aggression as a personality style (cited of Yegidis, 1992). Modeling involves the observation by the child of physical aggression by the parents or the direct experience of having been physically abused. In a study of wife abuse and marital rape, it was found that viewing parental violence was equally important in creating a future pattern of abuse as the direct experience of child abuse itself.

Modeling, therefore, increases the likelihood that one will use violence in order to handle interpersonal difficulties (Yegidis, 1992). Extensive literature exists on the relationship between stress, frustration, and aggression. Stress alone does not cause violence, but it may be a stimulus that serves to arouse some individuals. Overall, abusers generally tend to possess an aggressive personality style. Consequently, people possessing this trait are more likely to get angry than others and may actually get angrier more often than others.

Research suggests that there may be two important aspects to the relationship between family abuse and alcohol. Very often, the abusive behavior of the perpetrator is permitted and excused by the victim because the perpetrator was under the influence of alcohol. On the other hand, alcohol use by victims leads to a numbing effect as well as feelings of powerlessness. Domestic abuse typically follows a cycle of violence pattern. There are three phases in the cycle of violence: tension-building, acute battering and the honeymoon phase.

During the tension-building phase, the batterer becomes increasingly moody, hostile and critical of his partner. Minor battering incidents may occur. During the acute battering phase, the batterer is likely to assault the victim. Major assault of the victim, physically and psychologically, usually distinguishes the acute battering incident from the minor battering incidents that may occur during the tension-building phase. Shortly after the acute battering phase is the honeymoon phase. The batterer may apologize, beg forgiveness, or promise that the violent behavior will never happen again.

An estimated three to four million women annually in the United States are the victims of physical abuse by their intimate partners (Harris & Cook, 1994). According to the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) of the FBI, a husband or boyfriend murders 30 percent of women killed in the United States. In addition, violence is the second leading cause of injuries to women ages 15 through 44 years of age (Velsor-Friedrich, 1994). Most aggressors will often attribute their abusive behavior to external causes, while victims attribute the abuse to internal factors within themselves or situational factors about the abuser (e. Its only because he has been drinking).

The frequent occurrence of victim self-blame is reinforced by social attitudes which are responsible for often blaming the woman for inciting the abuse or not leaving her abuser (Harris & Cook, 1994). There are numerous answers to the commonly asked question of why a woman would stay in an abusive relationship. For many women, no other sources of financial support or housing exist. The responsibility of childcare further complicates the problem. The most serious reason for concern is the fear of retribution by the abuser.

Batterers frequently threaten to kill the woman or other family members if they tell anyone that they are being beaten. Despite the abuse, a woman may still love her partner and, consequently, will lie to protect him. Many victims possess low self-esteem caused by repeated abuse, both physical and emotional, and believe that they dont deserve help. Finally, the pure fact of being embarrassed or ashamed may be sufficient reason for the victim to stay. The term domestic violence against men causes many Americans to react with disbelief. Abused husbands are a frequent topic for jokes.

Family abuse is directly linked to status in the family and socialization. There are many serious effects of societys reluctance to consider the potential for domestic abuse by female. In our society, a large number of girls are told to slap a boy if he gets fresh. Movies and television programs display scenes of women punching and slapping men with complete impunity, while the viewer usually reacts with support for the womens character. While a slap is usually a harmless act, it is important to consider that a slap is still a violent act.

A common question exists when examining domestic abuse against men: if men are usually bigger and stronger than women, then why dont they try to protect themselves: It is important to look at this issue from a child development standpoint. At the same time that girls are being taught that it is acceptable to slap a boy, boys are being told to never hit a girl. The number of cases and the severity and pattern of the violence used against the victims are the major factors differentiating mens violence against women from the violence of women against men.

The civil protection order and the criminal court process are effective tools for protecting almost all heterosexual male victims because women rarely attempt separation violence, the violence that results as the victim attempts to leave the abuser (Pence & Paymar, 1995). Why do men stay? Although they may not be victimized if they leave their spouse, there are many reasons why abused men stay in their violent homes. Abused men, like abused women, fear that if they leave their spouse, the abuse that they have encountered may be directed against their children.

Additionally, many men are hesitant to leave since women get physical custody of children in a large majority of divorce cases. They may also fear that the courts will limit children visitation and access. Deciding to leave an abusive relationship is just one part of the problem for an abused male. Another part is choosing where to go since very few shelters exist for them to find refuge. A variety of programs exist to help abusive men control their violence more effectively, however, finding comparable programs that exists for violent women is an extreme challenge.

Resources and facilities that deal with combating domestic violence are scarce due to the limited funding of social services. Therefore, it has been suggested that some womens groups are fearful that the small amount of funds that exist for assisting abused women may be further lessened if the American public recognizes that men are also abuse victims. Recognizing mens victimization does not mean that we must deny that women are victims. In fact, groups and agencies that assist abused women could also extend their services to aid battered men and vice versa.

The health care system can play an important role as an intervention point. As changes take place in the manner by which health care is delivered, health service researchers have begun to examine ways of reaching out to individuals who require special attention or care, that are unable to obtain it. This approach has also been applied to domestic abuse victim health services. With the number of injuries hat domestic abuse causes annually, the health care system has begun to see itself as an important link in helping ht victims.

The health care profession is in a position to identify abused victims, administer the proper care they require, and refer them to necessary social services. Unfortunately, numerous articles report that many health care professionals do not perform these services for battered women, especially in the emergency room. Using ethnographic techniques, Sugg and Inue (1992) concluded that physicians who explored for domestic abuse in the health care setting felt the procedure to be similar to opening Pandoras box, in fact, 18 percent of the physicians interviewed used that actual phrase.

The physicians participating in this study (the majority of whom were family practice specialists) reported such problems as lack of comfort in dealing with the issue, fear of offending the patient, a sense of powerlessness, loss of control, and time constraints, all of which constitute barriers to domestic abuse recognition and intervention in cases of domestic abuse seen in the primary care setting (Sugg and Inue, 1992).

Analyzing research that investigates health professionals perspective of domestic abuse helps to confirm the startling reality that exists for victims seeking assistance. Sadly enough, as severe a health threat domestic abuse poses to women, many victims have been, or are currently, misidentified or met with apathy by health care professionals. This phenomenon is due to many factors, the most common of which includes inadequate training (many training programs do not even discuss domestic abuse) and tendencies toward feelings of victim blaming.

Many health care professionals adopt the stance that domestic abuse is a problem that falls outside the spectrum of their job description. These professionals view the ideology of the family as a private domain and believe difficulties inside the home can and should be settled by the family member themselves (Davison & Couns, 1997). Assessment of abuse, whether in female or male, requires a high degree of suspicion during the assessment of the patient.

Sadly enough, physicians fail to always recognize and/or acknowledge the source of repeated injuries. One study found that 35 percent of female emergency room patients are treated for symptoms related to ongoing abuse, but only approximately 5 percent of the women are identified as victims of domestic abuse (Bowers, 1994). In 1992, the American Medical Association published Treatment Guidelines on Domestic Violence. Aside from assessment, suggestions for the physician to follow in the interview of the victim are mentioned as well.

These include: Physicians must ask direct, specific questions to determine the occurrence or extent of abuse since many women do not recognized that they are battered; Consider the possibility of assault when a victims explanation of an injury does not seem plausible, or when the victim has delayed medical treatment; The patient may appear frightened or nervous or exhibit stress-related symptoms in addition to physical injury; Maintaining a complete and detailed description of the event, in the victims own words if possible and of resulting injuries, including photographs if applicable; Being aware that the severity of current or past injury is not an accurate predictor of future violence, the patients safety should be discussed before leaving the physicians office or treatment center; Being aware of local resources to make appropriate referrals; A physician who treats a victim and does not inquire about domestic abuse or accepts an unlikely explanation for the injury could be held liable if the victim returns to the abuser and is injure again (American Medical Association, 1992).

Aside from medical and psychiatric treatment for injuries, potential victims of abuse can be given information and counseling form the health care provider in order to prevent further victimization episodes. Patients can be informed about the risk factors involved that would increase the chances of serious harm to them.

Psychological counseling, administered by either the primary care provider or a mental health professional, can assist the patient in ending personal relationships with abusive individuals. Additionally, the patient can be provided with telephone numbers and encouraged to contact existing community resources such as crisis centers, shelters, protective service agencies, or the police department if there is fear of injury (Guide to Clinical Preventive Screening, 1995). Its amazing to me that of all crimes in todays society; domestic violence is the one that is still on the rise. It is time to take domestic violence seriously and combat it aggressively.

In order for positive change to occur, our legal system needs to protect the battered and not the batterer. A majority of battered women are murdered if they try to leave an abusive situation. Why is that? Because they dont have the protection they need. The criminal justice system needs to start a victim relocation program for domestic abuse victims. This would ensure their safety and allow them enough courage to leave a horrible situation. In a nation that detests racism and protests animal cruelty then why are women and children still subject to torture and violence in their own homes at the hands of their husbands and fathers? In a politically correct world too many of us still view women and children as inferior, as property.

The media portrays women as sex symbols and often with a very noticeable lack of intelligence. Often doctors turn their backs on damage left as the result of abuse because of the fear of embarrassing their patients (WAC, 1994). It is time to declare war on domestic violence. Domestic violence will always be a part of our culture. Women are still not considered equal and historically it was acceptable to beat your wife if she was out of line. With todays broken marriages and extensive abuse of alcohol and drugs, the matter will only get worse. If strong initiatives are not instilled now, there will be many unnecessary deaths due to the rise in abuse.

Violence is a social problem that increases over the years. Violence is not so much shown in magazines and books as it is on television and the media. This does not mean that violence on television is the only source for aggressive or violent behavior, but it is a significant contributor. Children can also pick up violence from a parent or guardian at an early age. Peers are important in a childs life. It has been psychologically proven that males are more aggressive than females.

Therefore, if a childs peers are being aggressive, their actions tend to be imitated. American children watch an average of three to four hours of television daily, which can be a powerful influence in developing value systems and shaping behavior. Hundreds of studies of the effects of media violence on children have found that children may gradually accept violence as a way to solve problems, imitate the violence they observe on television and identify with certain characters, victims or victimizers.

Parents can protect their children from excessive television violence by paying attention to the programs their children are watching and restricting them from shows known to be violent, pointing out what is wrong with the program. Another solution to this problem is to explain that the actor has not actually been hurt or killed and such violence in real life results in pain or death. Children are not born understanding the difference between right and wrong, it is learned from what they hear, see or are taught. At an early age, children look to models such as parents, guardians and even babysitters to base their actions on.

Some people fail to see that they are being imitated and looked upon as a role model from those younger than them. If a babysitter is listening to music that contains violent lyrics or profanity, they should not be shocked if the child copies it. Parents arguments are also taken in by the child. Parents should try not to show violence towards each other when around a child. They should also disapprove of the violent episodes in front of the children, stressing the belief that such behavior is not the best way to resolve a problem. A childs peers mean a lot to their attitude whether one wants to believe it or not.

It blends in with their need to fit in. Popularity is what one hopes and dreams for during their teenage years. Therefore, children try to duplicate others actions. This factor may tend to lead to racial or sexual stereotyping consequently making the child believe that anyone different from these characteristics should be punished. This takes the child into the stage of what type of music to listen to as spoken about before. Everyday we are all caught in a losing battle, the challenge of our society to preserve safety for children and protect them from violence and guns.

The facts are that violence is everywhere, it is impossible to ignore them. It even seems as though no one recognized this as their problem or responsibility. Our deteriorating sense of community is everyones problem. It hs been proven that more teenage boys die from gunfire that from car accidents. These gunshot wounds are now a leading cause of death for teenage boys. In conclusion, we as a society should realize that its never too young to learn. We all picked up certain characteristics from someone.

To offset peer pressure among friends and classmates, parents should contact other parents and agree to enforce similar rules about what their children should watch, play with or stay around. If parents have serious difficulties setting limits, or deep concerns about how their child is reacting to certain things, they should contact a child and adolescent psychiatrist for help defining the problem. If children take up violent acts, they are most likely to carry it with them throughout their adult life and then it may eventually become seriously dangerous.

A problem has become known and to many, they feel that it’s about time that the general public has taken notice. This problem has been a taboo for centuries and in the mid nineties it has chosen to let itself be known, the problem that I am talking about is domestic violence, it has ruined families, and demoralized the victims for years and now because of the “trial of the century” we finally are allowed to discuss it in detail, without fear of reprisal, now we get to familiarize ourselves with it and eventually after we get to know all about it we can, through treatment, get rid of it.

In this paper, I will discuss roblems with the so called epidemic of domestic violence. This entire paper will be about domestic violence, and because of that I feel it is important to note that “in most families men and women do not engage in physically abusive behavior” (The Brown U. ), but because the media feels that it is their public duty to deceive us into believing that this problem is an “epidemic” (Domestic V. ) we feel that, that is the case.

Webster’s dictionary defines epidemic as “a rapid spreading of a disease; to many people at the same time”, this is not the case with domestic violence, one it didn’t ust happen overnight, it has just been popularized overnight, domestic violence has been going on from as far back as anyone can remember and probably farther than that, and two, this is not affecting many people at the same timem, because, as I’ve stated before, “in most families men and women do not engage in physically abusive behavior”.

If you as the reader gets anything out of this paper, it is important to me as the writer, that you find that, while domestic violence is a major problem for some families, it is by no means an epidemic. The major reason domestic violence has become so widespread over the last couple f years is because of the O. J. Simpson trial, as one person put it “the O. J. Simpson case would do for domestic violence what Anita Hill did for sexual harassment”.

The trial of the century brought a much needed attention to a issue that for too long was pushed to the back burner; domestic violence was a major issue in the case and it became evident, through the mass publicity of the case, that women weren’t crying wolf all these years, because of “the murder of Nicole Brown … the media would focus squarely on and engage in an unprecedented and lengthy dialogue about the issue of domestic violence” (Domestic V. it seems to always take something tragic for us to listen, but from this particular tragedy allot of good has come out of it and we can take heart in the fact that Nicole Brown did not die in vain.

Why do men abuse in the first place? That question has allot more than one answer to it and among them are “he might be under stress, he was beaten as a child, he lost his job … ” (Domestic V. for B. , the possibilities are endless, women or the abused has always look at these reasons as excuses for the abusers to justify their doings, but sometimes men, or the abusers, have a legitimate case in the reasons why they batter, ome, not all, but some men cannot help it, like the alcoholic who cannot stop drinking or the compulsive gambler who can’t stop gambling, an abuser hits because something clicked inside of him when he was younger and now he can’t stop.

The reasons why someone might find it appeasing to hit someone else is, he might of been raised in an abusive household, maybe the abuser was abused, physically, or made to feel inferior by someone else and now he is taking it out on the person who he feel he can beat, his significant other. After all is said and done we must remember that the ultimate choice to ecome an abuser was made by the person himself, but like the alcoholic and the compulsive gambler with “intensive” treatment they can be helped to control their problem.

It’s weird and even sad that with “over 4 million domestic assaults on women last year” (Domestic V. or B. ) it took the O. J. Simpson trial to finally illustrate the problem that some families have problems and a problem that caused “2000-4000 women killed each year” (Family V. ). When we as the public started looking away from the trial itself and into abusive nature in people, what we saw shocked us, it shocked us into realizing hat for years the abused has gone unheard, when we saw that “60% of women killed were killed by their husbands or boyfriends” (Domestic V. for B. ), it made both women and men feel ashamed that for all these years we didn’t listen to the cries of the abused.

In the past and today, when abused women wanted to seek help, the first people that they contacted were the police, but before 1994 the police departments across the nation took these calls “as low priority calls” (Family V. ), one of the reason was that police officers thought that domestic violence was a family problem best dealt with within the ramework of the family, but the major reason was, it seemed that in almost all of domestic abuse case the victims was the main protector of the abuser, “sometimes one or both spouses told police that they had already resolved their problems” (Family V. . Police officials and prosecutors had a hard time getting the perpetrators the proper punishment and treatment they deserved because, whether out of love or out of fear, women wouldn’t press charges or testify against their spouses.

Before O. J. and all the hysteria that followed during and after the trial, arguably he most dominant voice for women in the fight against domestic violence was and probably still is, Dr. Lenor Walker. Through years of work in her private psychotherapy practice she developed the theory of “battered women syndrome” (Domestic V. for B. in 1980, this theory gives us an understanding as to why a woman who is being systemically beaten by her husband or boyfriend does not leave the relationship right away or ever.

The theory that Dr. walker came up with has three stages, one “the tension building stage” (Domestic V. ), this stage consists of allot of minor verbal altercations and the next stage, the acute battering incident” (Domestic V. ) stage is just an escalation of stage one, it becomes more physical and most often “the abusers cannot stop even if the woman is severally injured” (Domestic V. for B. ) and finally the “love contribution stage” (Domestic V. or the “honeymoon period” (Domestic V. ), this is the stage that inevitably causes the woman to stay in the relationship, in this stage the “abuser becomes at once charming, loving … willing to do anything to be forgiven” (Domestic V. ); some speculate that “sometimes women want to get to the honeymoon period so badly that they ‘provoke’ the iolent episode” (Domestic V. for B. ).

It is mainly because of this stage, the “love contribution stage”, that police and prosecutors had such a hard time getting abusers locked up, the mistreated, more often than not, believed the abusers and eventually decide to give them another chance.

The before mentioned cycle is one part of the “battered women syndrome”, the other part of Dr. Lenor Walker’s theory is that after years of this cycle and “because of years of repressed rage, rage she swallowed so that they wouldn’t get beaten, they can suddenly snap and become violent themselves” (Domestic V. for B. ). This violent rage gainst men from women, which sometimes leads to the woman killing the man, has been going on for years, but it is only until Dr. Walker came up with the theory in 1980 that we have an understanding as to why.

We are well aware of the fact that women get abuse, but it might suprise us that “approximately 2 million husbands compared to 1. 8 million wives experienced at least one or more serious forms of spousal abuse” (Domestic V. ),I understand that the punishment that a man can inflict on a woman is much greater than what a woman can do to a man, but it is important for us to know that abuse isn’t as simple as, woman equals victim and an equals the evil abuser; numerous researchers found that “when physical abuse does occur men are as likely to be the victims as women” (The Brown U. . What most men find is that their in a lose, lose situation, if they take the abuse, and report it, they are considered “inferior” and if they fight back, because they are perceived as the aggressors, they are the ones who get arrested.

The solution for men, sadly will not come anytime soon and if by chance it does, it will take a gender “swap” O. J Simpson case, were the dead will be the ex-husband and his female friend and the accused will be the former asketball player, current hall of famer / actress / basketball commentator abusive ex-wife.

They’re two major problem with the way we look at domestic violence, one, which I have previously mentioned, is that men are always perceived as being the abuser and two, the misrepresenting of facts that the media has sought to bring to the public’s eye, an example of this is that it is said that “4000 thousand women are killed by their spouse every year” (Domestic V. ), but at the same time “in 1992 in a high risk group of women aged 18-34 there was a total of 702 fatalities” (Domestic V. , granted, one death due to omestic violence is one death too much, but to exaggerate the fact by that great of an amount does the cause of stopping domestic violence a great mis-justice.

Another widely used fact that no doubt is true, but the way that it is portrayed distorts the truth, is that “at least one fifth of all emergency room visits by women are the results of being beaten by men”(Domestic V. for B. , again, the striking blow that the media pushes would be lost if they disclose the fact that this survey was done in an “inner city population of Detroit” (Domestic V. ), there’s two problems with that, one because the survey was done in an nner city, it cannot be appropriately projected nationwide, just as if they were to do a survey in Anchorage, Ak and say that nationwide, only 1 in 200 women in the emergency room are there because of domestic violence; problem two is that the survey also “includes men hit by women” (Domestic V. . Looking at the facts given out by the media becomes less shocking when the entire story is analyzed and realized. Because domestic violence has become such a well known problem, it has become common knowledge that unless something is done, it will continue to be a problem for families to deal with.

2 years, 7 months and 3 days ago, our lives were changed forever. This marks the date of April 20, 1999. When the students arrived that day at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado they had no idea that 12 students and 1 teacher wouldnt be leaving by the end of the day. What could ever drive two high school students to the point where the only answer was death and suicide? Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold took the only answer to their graves. And it gets worse. Since Columbine, Georgia, Virginia, Oregon, Michigan and Tennessee have had violence plaguing there schools with children as young as 9 years old committing the acts.

School should be the last place that a parent should fear for their childs life. Juvenile homicide is now twice as Rocco 2 common as it was in the 1980s and that statistic is rising. To stop a problem like this you must know where it starts. To do this, you need to know what drove these kids to commit such an act. It seems that most politicians blame television and video games for the violence in the school system. People keep saying video games and movies caused the violence. It’s absolutely the reverse.

Part of the attraction young people have to violent video games is simply a reaction to their imprisoning school system and the harsher and wilder the video games or the speed metal music, the more inspired the young people feel, because there’s nothing else in the cultural environment to inspire them (Sischy 1999: 2). Jason Dorsey, a motivational speaker and author of the book “Can Students End School Violence? ” believes its the fear of being excluded. The fear is not that they will get shot or stabbed. Its that they will have to sit in the cafeteria all alone during lunch.

Or that they will raise their hand to ask a question and be made fun of (Creegan 2000: 1). Rocco 3 Fear and low self-esteem seem to go hand and hand now a day in our school system. The two together can lead to a dangerous combination that has the power to not only change lives, but end them as well. Once a students self-esteem is affected and they no longer care about their future, then the physical violence starts (Creegan 2000: 2). It makes sense then to start at an early age before self-esteem and discrimination has a chance to enter a childs life.

Myrna Shure, PhD, a psychology professor at MCP Hahnemann University believes that If they can grow up as thinking and feeling human beings who care about themselves and others,” she said, “they will be more empathic, successful at making friends and will be able to make responsible decisions in light of their potential consequences (Volz 1999: 1). How do you make sure that children grow up thinking like that without taking away their right to be individuals? The biggest problem is that there is no easy solution.

The panel on school violence discussed a variety of solutions after school programs, mental health counseling and student problem Rocco 4 solving. But what they all quickly realized was the sobering truth that there are no easy solutions (Thomas 1999: 1). To heal the nation of a wound like this it is going to take time and cooperation between parents, students, the school systems and the community. Parents need to be there for their children. You can make a difference in our society, just by being present in the life of a child, whether its your child, or someone elses.

Just by being a friend, a mentor, a sounding board just by carrying enough to show up (Case 1998: 1). Students need to learn that what they do and say really affect the life of someone else. What may been meant as a harmless joke could end up being devastating to someone else. Statistics show that most school shootings in the U. S. could have been prevented by someone who had knowledge of the shootings in advance (http://Ehelp911. Com). Sites like this one allow students to get involved in the fight against school violence.

Domestic Violence Against Women is a global issue reaching across national boundaries as well as socio-economic, cultural, racial and class distinctions. It is a problem without frontiers. Not only is the problem widely dispersed geographically, but its incidence is also extensive, making it a typical and accepted behavior. Only recently, within the past twenty-five years, has the issue been “brought into the open as a field of concern and study” (Violence Against Women in the Family, page 38).

Domestic violence is not an isolated, individual event but rather a attern of repeated behaviors that the abuser uses to gain power and control over the victim. Unlike stranger-to-stranger violence, in domestic violence situations the same perpetrator repeatedly assaults the same victim. These assaults are often in the form of physical injury, but may also be in the form of sexual assault. However the abuse is not only physical and sexual, but also psychological.

Psychological abuse means intense and repetitive humiliation, creating isolation, and controlling the actions of the victim through intimidation or manipulation. Domestic violence tends to become more frequent nd severe over time. Oftentimes the abuser is physically violent sporadically, but uses other controlling tactics on a daily basis. All tactics have profound effects on the victim. Perpetrators of domestic violence can be found in all age, racial, ethnic, cultural, socio-economic, linguistic, educational, occupational and religious groups.

Domestic violence is found in all types of intimate relationships whether the individuals are of the same or opposite sex, are married or dating, or are in a current or past intimate relationship. There are two essential elements in every domestic violence situation: the victim and buser have been intimately involved at some point in time, and the abuser consciously chooses to use violence and other abusive tactics to gain control over the victim. In some instances, the abuser may be female while the victim is male; domestic violence also occurs in gay and lesbian relationships.

However, 95% of reported assaults on spouses or ex-spouses are committed by men against women (MTCAWA e-mail interview) “It is a terrible and recognizable fact that for many people, home is the least safe place” (Battered Dreams, 9). Domestic violence is real violence, ften resulting in permanent injuries or death. Battering is a widespread societal problem with consequences reaching far beyond individual families. It is conduct that has devastating effects for individual victims, their children and their communities.

In addition to these immediate effects, there is growing evidence that violence within the “family becomes the breeding ground for other social problems such as substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and violent crimes of all types” (MTCAWA e-mail interview). Domestic violence against women is not merely a domestic issue; but, rather a complex socio-economical risis that threatens the interconnected equilibrium of the entire social structure. Causes & Effects “Within the family there is a historical tradition condoning violence” (Violence Against Women: The Missing Agenda, 29).

Domestic violence against women accounts for approximately 40 to 70% of all violent crime in North America. However, the figures don’t tell the entire story; less than 10% of such instances are actually reported to police (The Living Family, 204). The causes of domestic violence against women are numerous. Many claim stress is the substantial cause of domestic conflict resulting in violence. Though stress in the workplace is a contributing factor, it is by no means the substantial one. Many people suffer from stress disorders, but most don’t resort to violence as a means of release.

It is apparent that the substantial causes have more to do with the conditioning of males culturally, and within the family of orientation than anything else. Historically, women have been treated more as belongings than human beings; Old English Common Law permitted a man to abuse his wife and kids, as long as he didn’t use a stick thicker than the width of his thumb–“Rule of Thumb” (The Living Family, 201). Culturally, men have been conditioned to repress their feelings of emotion–always acting like the tough guy, the linebacker, the cowboy.

But, when confronted with an emotionally difficult conflict, one which is impossible to shove down deep, they irrupt in volcanic proportions, often taking out years of repressed rage on those closest to them, in particular their own family. However, what seems to be the most significant cause of the male tactic of violent conflict resolution is violence within the family of orientation. Statistics show that 73% of male abusers had grown up in a family where they aw their mother beaten, or experienced abuse themselves (MTCAWA e-mail interview).

Using the (relatively accepted) Freudian model, which claims that all mental illness stems from traumatic childhood trauma, one can see how there is a direct correlation between violence in the family of orientation and violence within the family of procreation. And, indeed, abusers are mentally ill, though the illness tends to be more subtle than others: many abusers display a Jekyll&Hyde personality, where they are nothing like their domestic selves outside the home. In most cases the cycle of violence starts slowly; it usually consists f a slap in the face or a hard shove.

But the frequency and degree of violence escalates with time. The abuser will justify the abuse by pointing out his wife’s inadequacies and faults. But, no matter how wrong the wife is, there is little, if no, justification for spousel abuse within a civil society. The real issue at hand is the neurosis within the male psyche. Just as in rape, the key issue is control. Male abusers are laden with fear about losing power. They inflict physical abuse on their spouse to prove that they have, still have, and will have control over their spouses (and/or children. ) They won’t stop there either.

The pattern of abuse involves severe mental torture and humiliation–blaming, threatening, ignoring, isolating, forcing sex, monitoring phone calls, and restricting any form of social life. It is a vicious cycle of abuse, where the wife is almost literally chained to the husband. Her self-esteem has been obliterated. She is financially, emotionally, and functionally helpless. She is incapable of reaching out for help for herself or for her children. At this point the abuse gets more routine; the abuser sites his partner’s pathetic state as more reason to beat her.

And the ictim sinks deeper, and more beatings ensue. She has been infected with psychological-AIDS; she has no defense (“immune system”) to combat the disease of abuse. For women, escaping an abusive relationship is VERY difficult. And the abuse usually doesn’t stop at the discretion of the male. An in-depth study of all one-on-one murder and non-negligent manslaughter cases in Canada from 1980 to 1984 found that 62% of female victims were killed by a male partner (Violence Against Women Homepage). It is painfully clear that victims have little but two choices: leave or die. Sadly, the latter is the easier one.

Domestic Violence as a Health Issue The World Health Organization defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (In the Health of Women: A Global Perspective, 78). Based on this, domestic violence against women is clearly a health problem. In 1984, the U. S. Surgeon General declared domestic violence against women as the number ONE health problem (Violence Against Women Homepage). Physical violence is the most basic form of domestic violence, leading to extensive injury, unsuccessful pregnancies and even murder.

As mentioned above, in Canada 62% of women murdered were killed by an intimate male partner. These are deaths caused by a preventable social problem. Actual or threatened physical violence, psychological violence and the denial of physical and economic resources all have an enormous impact on women’s mental health. “A history of victimization is seen as a strong risk factor for the development of mental health problems” (MTCAWA e-mail interview). These problems take many forms, all affecting women’s ability to attain a basic quality of life for herself and her family.

Abuse is strongly associated with lcoholism and drug use in women (Facts About Domestic Violence). It also can lead to “fatigue and passivity coupled with an extreme sense of worthlessness” (Violence Against Women in the Family, 78 ). These symptoms together remove any initiative and decision making ability from the victim. This lethargy, coupled with economic barriers, makes escape from the situation very difficult. The lack of initiative also thwarts women’s abilities to participate in activities outside of the home.

High levels of stress and depression are also extremely common mental health problems for victims of family violence, often leading to uicide (Facts About Domestic Violence). In the United States, one quarter of suicide attempts by white women and one half of attempts by African American women are preceded by abuse (In the Health of Women: A Global Perspective, 128). The World Bank’s analysis found domestic violence to be a major cause of disability and death among women; the burden of family violence is comparable to that of HIV, tuberculosis, cardiovascular disease or cancer (Domestic Violence Against Women: A Global Issue, 29).

In industrialized nations one in five healthy days of life are lost to women age 15 to 44 due to domestic iolence (Fact Sheet About Domestic Violence) Domestic violence “diverts the scarce resources of national health care systems to the treatment of a preventable social ill” (Violence Against Women in the Family, 87). Medical costs for the treatment of abused women total at least 3 to 5 billion dollars annually in the United States. Battered women in the United States are four to five times more likely than non-battered women to require psychiatric treatment, and over one million women in the U.

S. use emergency medical services for injuries related to battering each year. Finally, amilies in the United States in which domestic violence occurs use doctors eight times more often, visit the emergency room six times more often and use six times more prescription drugs than the general population (Facts About Domestic Violence. ) A Socio-Economic Crisis Domestic violence against women is not an individual or family problem. It is an important social issue. Using the Systems Theory as a theoretical framework helps show the resonating effect of such violence.

The family unit is one of many sub-systems. Together, all these different sub-systems make up the one big system (i. e. , society). The human body serves as a good example: when one organ (sub-system) is malfunctioning, all other organs are effected (other sub-systems). This will have an effect on the whole body itself (society). Although the family unit is only one among the many sub-systems, it is considered to be the most important of them all–the heart, if you will.

Since the family unit is responsible for the socialization of children who will later go on to participate in other sub-systems, than it is logical to assume that a deterioration in the crucial family unit can result in a deterioration within other sub-systems, and of course, the entire system itself. As mentioned above, the sub-system of health care is feeling the pressure. Something as preventable as domestic violence against women is diverting funds from an already under-funded health care system. There are people out there who need serious medical treatment, but will never, or at the very most, will get insufficient treatment.

In the U. S. , domestic violence against women ranks as one of the most expensive health problems (Facts About Domestic Violence). Monies allocated to the medical treatment of abused women (3 to 5 billion dollars annually) diverts much needed funds from such already nder-funded institutions as education, law enforcement, social services etc. Therefore the possibility exists that adults of the future will be sparsely educated delinquents; crime will be on the increase; and important social services won’t be able to look out for the welfare of the people–such as shelters for abused women.

The result is long term decay within the entire system, which will add further to the decay within the family, which will cause the entire vicious cycle to continue. As previously mentioned, 73% of male abusers were abused, or saw abuse as children. Thus an epidemic of violence within the family of orientation is a rimary cause of psychological disfunction–in specific, violent conflict resolution–which is responsible for the breakdown of the entire social order.

U. S. Justice Department statistics show that at least 80% of men in prison grew up in violent homes (Facts About Domestic Violence. ) And in at least half of the wife abusing families, the children were battered as well. And 63% of boys ages 11 to 20 who commit homicide, murder the man who was abusing their mother. As mentioned initially, violence within the family “family becomes the breeding ground for other social problems such as substance abuse, juvenile elinquency, and violent crimes of all types. ” The all important family unit is the centre of social universe.

All other institutions revolve around it. If the sun were to blow up the entire galaxy would go with it. Conclusion Domestic violence against women must be perceived as a socio-economical problem rather than a private issue imbedded within family — a domestic issue which can be easily ignored. It must receive appropriate attention from the various institutions within our society as an issue affecting the overall standard of living. It is not only a women’s issue, but also a problem that threatens the harmony within our communities.

I chose this particular topic because I have a friend that was in an abusive relationship. I didnt really understand why she stayed with him for so long. I first started suspecting that she was being abused was when I was on the phone with her and heard him screaming at her in the background. She yelled back and played it off like nothing was wrong. She said usually he was a good guy, but merely had a bad day. I kept asking her why she stayed with him and she always replied that she loved him. Fortunately, they arent together anymore. She finally got tired of all the abuse and called my uncle who is a police officer.

He came over, made him pack all of his stuff, and informed him that if he ever came back there would be more trouble than he could handle. Oddly enough, she still says that she misses him. I can only imagine how much more complicated it would be for a woman with children. In the literature, I expect to find that there are many more women being abused than people really realize. I also expect to find that most women stay because they are financially dependent, or they dont want their children to grow up ithout a father. Also, Im assuming most women are scared for their lives if they attempt to leave.

To research my predictions I chose to read articles from Analyzing Social Problems, The Journal of Marriage and Family, and The Journal of Interpersonal When people refer to the word violence, they usually dont think of domestic violence. However, domestic violence is a very serious form of abuse. According to the article Severity of Violence Against Women by Intimate Partners and Associate Abuse of Alcohol and/or Illicit Drugs by the Perpetrator, a current or former intimate partner hysically and/or sexually assaults eight out of every 1,000 women (Wilson 2000:996).

The National Crime Victimization Survey reveals that more than 1. million incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend occur in America each year, and about 85% of these victims are women (Greenfield et al. 1998). While people have heard that most assaults occur to women by their mates each year, few know that men are also assaulted at home. Many of these assaults go unreported. The relationship of alcohol to intimate partner violence remains significant in studies. Mens drinking patterns, especially binge drinking, are directly associated with marital violence across all ethnic groups and social classes.

The latest studies show that 1,800 murders were committed by an intimate partner in 1996, with three out of four victims being women (Wilson, 2000:997). Violence is a learned trait that can by brought on by the affects of alcohol. As I researched further, I learned about the Social Learning Theory in the article, Harsh Physical Discipline in Childhood and Violence in Later Romantic Involvement; the Mediating Role of Problem Behaviors. The Social Learning Theory suggests that those who are subjected to harsh discipline learn that violence can be an effective way to change behaviors of others.

Harsh physical punishment in childhood is directly related to greater perpetration of violence against an intimate partner late in life( Swinford 2000: 508). Children treated with such physical aggression learn that it is permissible within the context of intimate relationships and that violence is justified when someone is guilty of wrong doing. Research suggests that wives are more likely to e victims of spousal abuse if they were subjected to severe physical discipline as a child (Swinford, 2000: 510). A family is considered the fundamental building block of society.

Whether or not that family has a negative or positive impact on society depends on their actions. As described in the article, Domestic violence: Hitting us Where We Live, the family has also been described as a cradle of violence and the marriage license as a hitting license (Rouse 1997: 17). Many frustrating events occur within the family and outside frustrations can be carried over into and expressed within the family. After a bad day at the office, family members become handy scapegoats for their anger. It gives the abuser release and a certain power over their victim.

One reason women and children are targets for violence in the home is that misconduct towards them is not sufficiently costly to the perpetrator and they are actually rewarded when the victim complies (Rouse 2000: 19). Often, women are afraid to leave their abuser. They fear for their lives, and often they become dependent, either financially or physically. There is an intense involvement when a family is created. By leaving, the victim feels a sense of failure and a sense of There are many more women being abused than most people believe.

What surprised me was that many men are being abused as well. Its not often talked about, but it should be looked at equally because in either case people are being abused. Victims stay with their abusers because they are mentally dependent, and afraid for their lives. Also, if children are involved, they dont want them to be without a father. Furthermore, learning about the Social Learning Theory, we need to stop the violence before it becomes a pattern in the family.

Domestic violence is a serious issue in todays society that is often overlooked. It affects people of all ages, races, and sexes, yet still not many people know anything about it. There are many different types of Domestic violence in families. They include: child abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and physical abuse. All of which are very traumatic for the victims involved. Child abuse is one of the top types of violence that is often left unknown. The reason it is never reported is because often, the child being abused is scared to tell an authority. In many cases the abuser would threaten the child.

In other cases the abuser would tell the child that it was their fault they were being beaten. After being told something like this the child is scared for their own safety if anyone were to find out their secret, so they do not tell anyone about what is going on in their lives. Some cases of child abuse are taken to the extreme and a young person ends up dead. Of all the child murder cases 61% of the time the mother is the murderer. The statistics are scary, but until the kids who are being abused are brave enough to tell someone about their problem it will never change.

Sexual abuse is the second highest type of violence that is left untold. In this case the victim is often too embarrassed to tell someone, or in many cases they feel that they may have somehow lead the person on and that is why the incident or incidents occurred. Sexual abuse is described as any kind of sexual contact or communication that leaves the person feeling violated, hurt, or violated. You may ask what provokes violator to do such a thing? Many studies show that 33% of the offenders had been sexually abused as a child.

This means that they learned of the abuse when they were younger and maybe thought that was the only way to do it. This can be a real problem and lead to very dangerous outcomes. The third type of domestic violence in families is emotional abuse. This is where one person in the family verbally abuses someone else. They would say things that would lead the person to believe they are worthless or are not good enough for anyone. This type of abuse causes no physical harm but is very damaging to the victims self-conscience.

There are not a lot of people that report these types of abuse cases, but there are more reported than with the child abuse cases and the sexual abuse cases. When people do not report in this case they are usually not for sure that what they are receiving is an actual form of violence or abuse. The forth and final type of domestic violence is physical abuse in the family. It is where one person, usually a spouse, is physically beating their partner. Child abuse also falls into this category. It is important to remember in these cases that women are not the only victims of physical abuse.

Men are also often victims. This may seem unlikely because men are usually the taller and stronger of the spouses. In one survey 18. 6% of the men interviewed reported being abused by their spouse, while only 12% of the women interviewed reported being abused by their spouse. This proves the statement that it does not matter what sex, age, or race you are to be a victim of domestic violence. In conclusion, there are different kinds of domestic violence, but all kinds are very hurtful and damaging to a family and its members.

To stop the violence you must make sure facts and information about violence in homes are well publicized. If they are not the statistics will never change and the amount of domestic violence cases we are seeing today will never drop. There are, however, several ways to get help if you are a victim of domestic violence or know someone who is. You can either tell a school authority, police, or call a hotline specially made to help people in distress. Hopefully soon we can decrease or eliminate the domestic violence occurring in families all around the world.

Does entertainment influence society’s attitude towards violent behavior? In order to fully answer this question we must first understand what violence is. Violence is the use of one’s powers to inflict mental or physical injury upon another, examples of this would be rape or murder. Violence in entertainment reaches the public by way of television, movies, plays, and novels.

Through the course of this essay it will be proven that violence in entertainment is a major factor in the escalation of violence in society, once this is proven we will take all of the evidence that has been shown throughout this paper and come o a conclusion as to whether or not violence in entertainment is justified and whether or not it should be censored. Television with its far reaching influence spreads across the globe. Its most important role is that of reporting the news and maintaining communication between people around the world.

Television’s most influential, yet most serious aspect is its shows for entertainment. Violent children’s shows like Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and adult shows like NYPD Blue and Homicide almost always fail to show human beings being able to resolve their differences in a non-violent manner, nstead they show a reckless attitude that promotes violent action first with reflection on the consequences later. In one episode of NYPD Blue three people were murdered in the span of an hour. Contemporary television creates a seemingly insatiable appetite for amusement of all kinds without regard for social or moral benefits” (Schultze 41).

Findings over the past twenty years by three Surgeon Generals, the Attorney General’s Task Force on Family Violence, the American Medical Association, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical authorities indicate that televised violence is harmful to all of us, but particularly to the mental health of children (Medved 70-71).

In 1989 the results of a five year study by the American Psychological Association indicated that the average child has witnessed 8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence on television by the time he or she has completed sixth grade. In further studies it was determined that by the time that same child graduates from high school he or she will have spent 22,000 hours watching television, wice as many hours as he or she has spent in school (Bruno 124).

In a study by the Centers for Disease Control, published by the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), it was shown that homicide rates had doubled between the introduction of television in the 1950’s and the end of the study in 1994. In that same study other possible causes for the vast increases in violence were studied, “the ‘baby boom’ effect, trends in urbanization, economic trends, trends in alcohol abuse, the role of capital punishment, civil unrest, the availability of guns, and exposure to television”(Lamson 32).

Each of these purported causes was tested in a variety of ways to see whether it could be eliminated as a credible contributor to doubling the crime rate in the United States, and one by each of them was invalidated, except for television. Children average four hours of television per day, and in the inner city that increases to as much as eleven hours a day, with an average of eight to twelve violent incidents per hour. It is also interesting to note that violence occurs some fifty-five times more often on television than it does in the real world (Medved 156).

FBI and census data show the homicide arrest rate for eventeen-year-olds more than doubled between 1985 and 1991, and the rates for fifteen-and sixteen-year-olds increased even faster. Movies also add their fair share to the problem of violence in society. “Researchers have established that copycat events are not an anomaly. Statistically-speaking, they are rare, but predictable, occurences. Television shows, novels, but especially movies-all can trigger copycat violence” (Medved 72).

As recently as November of 1995, New York City officials believed that the burning of a toll-booth clerk was a result of copycat violence, resulting from similar scene in the movie Money Train. In 1994, Nathan Martinez shot and killed his stepmother and half sister after watching the movie Natural Born Killers at least six times. “Later, Martinez, who had shaved his head and wore granny sun glasses like Natural Born Killer’s main character Mickey Knox, reportedly told a friend, “It’s nothing like the movies”(Purtell 57).

In a 1993 film, The Program, there was a scene showing college football players lying in the center of a highway in an attempt to show their courage and dedication to their sport. This movie was later blamed for inspiring eal-life imitators; (one of whom died). In numorous experiments based at pre-schools, researchers have observed children playing before and after seeing violent movies and television shows. “Following the violent program the children’s play is invaribly more aggressive. They are much more likely to hit, punch, kick, and grab to get their way.

In other words, violent entertainment teaches children how to use aggression for personal gain” (Medved 75). It is also hard to believe that movies like Rambo III with one hundred and six killings and Terminator 2 which showed countless killings lus a nuclear holocaust have at one time had their own line of children’s action figures even though both movies are rated R. One must seriously consider the idea that the movie studios are targeting a younger and easily influenced main audience. The ancient Greeks believed that violence should never be shown on stage, because people imitated what they saw.

Because of this they would only show the results of violence in order to deter any violent activity. The Greeks slowly but surely moved away from this idea as did other playwrights, and by the late 1500’s a new writer with a new view on violence was beginning to write plays. His name was William Shakespeare. Many critics were bothered by Shakespeare’s failure to follow the rules of the ancient Greeks, especially the rules concerning violence, but they also objected to Shakespeare’s comic sexual passages, which they considered vulgar.

Shakespeare was a writer during what has historically been called the Elizabethan era. Shakespeare’s plays reflect the shift from optimism to pessimism in Elizabethan society. “Elizabethans were keenly aware of death and the brevity of life” (Info Find), but death and violence fascinated the Elizabethans. “They flocked to the beheadings of traitors hose heads were exhibited on poles and watched as criminals were hanged, and they saw the rotting corpses dangle from the gallows for days” (The Student Handbook 2: 591). Elizabethans, literature and lives were very violent.

In Shakespeare’s play Hamlet all the main characters die through murder or suicide, all of which is shown on stage. Those critics who say excessive violence has only become a common occurence in today’s entertainment, should watch Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus with its’ stage direction, “Enter a messenger with two heads and a hand” (Klavan 98), or they should atch as quarts of stage blood are poured all over the “victims” in that same play. Novels, just like television, movies, and plays can cause violence. Throughout history novels have been the cause of violent behavior.

Those who say people can’t be influenced by books, should really look into the influence that a book called Uncle Tom’s Cabin had ten years prior to the Civil War. In 1851 Uncle Tom’s Cabin, written by Harriet Beecher Stowe was published. The novel told of the hardships and cruelties faced by African-American slaves in the south. The novel popularlized the abolitionist movement and is believed to have been a major ause for the Civil War, which even though a noble cause, resulted in over 500,000 deaths (The Student Handbook 2: 592). In 1980 Mark Chapman, a former mental patient, shot and killed John Lennon.

When asked why he did it, he indicated that he got the idea to kill Lennon from J. D. Salinger’s novel The Catcher in the Rye (590). He felt that he and the main character in the story, Holden Caufield, were very similar because they were both angry social outcasts, who were recovering from a mental breakdown (590). Violence is prominent in children’s novels too. R. L. Stine’s novel The Babysitter III, tells of decapitating a baby and in Christopher Pike’s novel, Monster, there is a graphic description of the effects of a shotgun being fired at a person’s head at close range.

Roderick McGillis, a professor of English at the University of Calgary and author of a book on children’s literature, has written that, “What disturbs me is that we’re developing in our culture, in our cities, a kind of siege mentality. A lot of thes books reinforce this, make it sort of normal to think that the world is a place in which violence can erupt at any moment” (Gray 54). With all of this evidence t is hard to ignore the fact that violence in entertainment can cause violence in society. This paper has now shown that there are copycat kilers who get the idea for their crimes from entertainment.

It has also been shown that the more violent movies and television children watch the more likely thay are to become aggressive and violent. Violence in entertainment and society is not isolated to the present, it was also very prominent in the writings of Shakespeare. With the evidence showing that violence in entertainment causes real life violence, it is very hard to say that violence in entertainment is justifiable. When little children and adults alike, fall victim to entertainment’s violent influence it is not justifiable and it is especially not justifiable when violent entertainment creates real life victims.

Is censorship the answer to the problem of violent entertainment? Should we tell people what they can or can’t read or watch? The simple answer to this question is no, we can’t censor violent entertainment. The First Amendment clearly states that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the ress, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The instinct to censor is the tragic flaw of utopian minds. “Our first job,” said Plato in his classic attack on the democratic system , “is to oversee the work of the story writers, and to accept any good stories they write, but reject the others” (Klavan 96). If the government ever did censor violent entertainment who knows where they would stop, or even if they would. Perhaps they would try to censor violent speech or try to censor the speech of those who disagreed ith the actions of the government.

The simple message is don’t promote censorship, because it could easily get out of hand, and as the old saying goes “the road to hell is paved with good intentions. ” There are then only two ways to get rid of the violent entertainment in our lives: we could shame those who make the violent movies, television shows, books, and plays, into having a social conscience, making them be less prone to creating violent entertainment; or we could simply solve the problem ourselves, with a push of a button, or the turn of a page.

In the last few years, I have noticed that on screen violence has become as common as a Cheesesteak in Philadelphia. People often argue that the violence seen on screen is influencing our culture, yet each year the amount of viewers’ increase. It seems that in order for your film or program to be successful it must contain violence. In my opinion, this constant levitation of violence on screen is due to our cultures’ infatuation with the art of violence.

Violence is present in the most of our cultures most enjoyedfilms like Independence Day, daytime talk shows such as Jerry Springer and even in cartoons that have been around forever like Tom & Jerry. I can recall a time when daytime talk shows (Donahue, Oprah) would hardly ever have audience feed back and very few panelists. My how times have changed. On today’s talk shows, such as Jerry Springer, there is always a boisterous audience member, or an insane guest. Just as sure as you will find Abe Lincoln on a penny, you will see a chair fly on Jerry Springer.

The Springer show was the first show to have guests’ fight without stopping the camera. Jerry Springers’ blatant disrespect for daytime show rules stirred controversy in the media but it also stirred up something in the public. interest. Although Jerry Springer had gone against all the rules of daytime, his rebellion had made his talk show the most watched show in the nation. When the Springer show surpassed the ratings of all time favorite Oprah Whinfrey, it was re-established that violence sells.

Recently the Springer show has stopped airing its’ fierce and very real fights for many reasons, one being that 23% of the people that watched his show are under the age of sixteen. Although Jerry Springer is a show intended for adults, childrens’ shows contain violence as well. When I was a child, I saw nothing wrong with the Elmer Fudd hunting Rabbits or other Looney Tune characters being blown up, shot, or thrown off a cliff. Wile E. Cyote was always being killed while scheming to catch the Road Runner. The most popular cartoons always contained violence.

Though not the most violent, Tom & Jerry exhibited the cat and mouse chase with a little extra. There have been countless times I have been glued to the TV as Tom was beaten up, cut up, or strangled by the witty mouse Jerry. It did not even strike me as violence, but it was. I watched Tom & Jerry a few days ago, I realized that the whole show was based on Tom and Jerry trying to kill each other. Tom trying to kill Jerry to eat him or keep his master and mistress happy and Jerry trying to kill Tom to save his life.

There weren’t a lot of weapons used in Tom & Jerry except for a few explosives here and there but never any guns like in many big screen movies. Everyone loves to go to the movie theatre with their over priced snacks and sticky floors, but what makes movies sell? The films that make the most money at the box offices are usually action films that have many fist fights, explosives and big guns. Independence Day grossed more at the box offices than any other film in history. The movies plot was typical. A group of fearless humans attempts to save the earth from vicious extraterrestrial.

Will Smith fist fought aliens, blew up planets and clobbered all the bad guys. The movie was consisted of a visual feast of explosives, property damages, and incredible sound effects. Independence Day was to Sci-Fi what Twister was to disaster films. Although Independence Day contained a massive amount of violence almost every person in America went to see it, and loved it. Just because our culture loves violence on screen, it does not mean that we all have sick and tormented minds, we are not all just killers waiting to happen.

Our culture is obsessed with real issues being dramatized . There is nothing wrong with having violence in films and on T. V. If a person wants to sit down and watch Will Smith blow up a planet and save the world, then they have that right. I personally enjoy watching action films with explosives, fistfights and death counts at nearly one hundred. I love the feeling of leaving the theatre in awe of what I just saw. Violence is apart of our culture both on and off the screen, only we can make light of a serious matter through the production of films, talk shows and cartoons.

Throughout history many women have been victims of domestic violence. Society considered men to be superior to women because men were always in power economically, legally, and religiously. This gave men the attitude that women were inferior to them. Men harm their wives by beating them physically and abusing them emotionally. Many of these women did not report the abuse that they got from their spouses and families because they thought that no one would believe them.

By becoming informed with the causes, effects, and treatments of domestic violence towards women in the United States, we can hen contain the damages that are done to women or at least get the message across to other women that there is help to overcome this tragic display of affection. Domestic violence is defined broadly as violent acts carried out by persons in a marital, sexual, parental, or care-giving role toward others in reciprocal roles. Spousal abuse may apply to couples engaged in a sexual relationship outside of marriage.

And child abuse may be penetrated by parents, siblings, step-parents, or live-in boyfriends or girlfriends of the abused childs parent (Rosen 3). Battered women are defined as women that have been Victora 2 physically or emotionally abused by their husbands or families. These women suffer from many different types of domestic violence but the cause is just one abuse. Abuse happens to many women but most of the time it is not reported to the police.

Abuse is an underreported crime, it is underreported for two reasons: a) it occurs in the privacy of ones home where there are typically no witnesses aside from family members to detect and report it and b) though violence is by no means restricted to the lower classes, middle- and upper class iolence is likely to go unreported to the police (Stets 3). Why it is not reported to the police could be the result of the emotions that are building up inside the victims head. These women feel apprehensive in reporting the abuse because they are scared of what the abuser will do to them.

They were afraid because if he found out that they called the police he might hurt them or their children even more than he already did. The lower class violence is usually reported because they deal with social services more often than the middle and upper classes do. They are more educated in knowing that public social control agencies can help them get through the abuse. The middle and upper classes do not usually report these acts of violence because they probably can afford a psychiatrists or a marriage counselor. Abusive behavior begins in cycles and not everyday occurrences.

This abusive cycle is called the battering cycle and it contains three phases. The first phase is the tension-building phase, the second phase is the explosion or acute 3 battering incident phase, and the third phase is the calm, loving phase. The first hase is when the woman notices the man building tension and becoming very edgy which causes minor violent episodes. Then the second phase begins when that tension builds up higher and the man explodes in anger or in a blind rage that revolves into a severe violent incident. And the third and final phase is when the man apologizes and tries to win the woman back by showering her with gifts.

The abuse that women obtain towards them can be experienced with various types of violence. Those types of violence can be anything from a minor push or shove to something major such as threatening with a weapon. In the past, spousal abuse has been treated as a fairly simple set of violent behaviors. The five most common types of domestic or spousal violence are: 1) when a woman is thrown against an object, 2) when she is hit with the mans open hand or fist, 3) when she is pushed or shaken roughly, 4) when she is hit with an object and the 5) and most deadly of all is when a woman is threatened with a weapon (Rhodes 32).

The causes of domestic violence towards women in the United States are many but the best known and lucid are the male gender attitudes of being number one. Men have the idea that women are worthless and inferior to them. This concept degenerates women to a lower class or form of life that can not allow men to see women as their equals. According to Violence Hits Home, Karen Rosen reported that men who abuse their spouses tend to have more 4 traditional gender-role orientation than do non-batterers. She also suggests those abusive men tend to be more controlling, dominating, and aggressive in order to get their needs met (85).

These men also believe that their abuse will help them to maintain power in their families. Rosen also found out that witnessing marital violence as a child was consistently related to abuse in adult relationships in other words Being a member of a violent family is how each generation learns to be violent ( 85 ). When a child is exposed to everyday acts of domestic violence then that child is brought up to believe that domestic violence is acceptable and can be done to their own spouses. Some men also abuse their wives in an act of jealousy, anger, and aggression or poor impulse control.

Men usually tend to abuse women more often when the women involved re not their wives. Batterers are more likely to be violent in non-family situations than men that are married and do not batter their wives. According to Sandra Stith, a researcher of the causes for domestic violence, Abusers were more likely than non-abusers to believe that wife-beating is not only justified but acceptable ( 86 ). This belief that violence is justified to maintain power may explain why men may choose not to control their anger and frustrations. In an abusive mans eyes violence is not only justified but also acceptable.

I think Mohandas Gandhi was one of the most significant persons in the 20th century. He was the one who proved that it is possible to fight very successful without violence. He fought his whole life with humanity, tolerance, ideas and without violence. He showed the way to a better world. And still today there are many people who love him and who use his philosophy to change the world. A very important example is the fight against wars. Usually people who fight against a war try to fight without violence. They march through cities and try to convince people not to go to the war or something like that.

Another very popular example is the fight against nuclear energy or nuclear weapons. Demonstrators sit on the road in front of a nuclear power station or block the way of trucks or trains, which carry nuclear waste. Or, very popular example, the French tests of nuclear weapons in the pacific. People opposed them and the press all over the world was talking about these tests. That was non-violent resistance. Marches all over the world and other non-violent actions. And another good example is “Greenpeace”. They fight for the nature and their most important weapon is the public.

They don’t use violence but they use the press. The actions, they do are very spectacular and interesting for the whole world. Many people all over the world agree with what they are doing. An example for not using violence even if others use it against them was when they went very close to where the French wanted to test their nuclear weapons and the French soldiers entered their boat and destroyed lots of things and hit the Greenpeace activists. And all that was filmed by Greenpeace and these pictures were sent all over the world and came in the news everywhere.

Also Martin Luther King didn’t use violence in his fight for the ights of the black people in America. An example, which all of us see and experience from time to time is the strike. Gandhi made the strike as a way of fighting popular and it is still used today very often. At the start of the 20th century the British Empire was the biggest empire in the world. India was it’s biggest colony and was very important to Britain. Gandhi managed to get India independent of the British. The biggest Empire in the world lost a war of independence against a country like India which not even used violence and good weapons for it’s fights.

That was a sign for the world. And especially for the other countries ruled by the British. It was then that many of those countries saw their chance for independence. Gandhi showed them the way. And that was one of the main causes for the independence of many of those countries. In the 1960’s most colonies in Africa became independent and also Indochina became independent. I think that was also one of the things Gandhi caused or helped causing. Gandhi fought for the rights of minorities and people who were pushed down his whole life. He encouraged every one to stand up for their rights and to fight against cruelty.

He showed the whole world how easy it is to fight for rights and how successful it can be if there are many people fighting for the same thing together. Many people in the whole world decided to start fighting for their rights when they realized how successful Gandhi was. That was the start of many fights for humanity and for rights of minorities. Good examples are the fights of the blacks in North America. Especially Martin Luther King fought under the influence of things Gandhi had said. Or the fights in South America under Che Guevara or even the fights of Aborigines in Australia.

But those are only a few examples. Fights for rights happened and still happen all over the world again and again because there are always people who push others down. I think Gandhi played a big part in the fight for humanity and the rights of minorities. I think Gandhi was and is still a very significant person. He changed people’s minds and opened lots of peoples minds. Still today when people see the movie that was made about his life and his fights they think about this person and how successful non-violence and rebellion can be. And that it is important to save the (human) life and not to destroy it.

Does entertainment influence society’s attitude towards violent behavior? In order to fully answer this question we must first understand what violence is. Violence is the use of one’s powers to inflict mental or physical injury upon another, examples of this would be rape or murder. Violence in entertainment reaches the public by way of television, movies, plays, and novels.

Through the course of this essay it will be proven that violence in entertainment is a major factor in the escalation of violence in society, once this is proven we will take all of the evidence that has been shown throughout this paper and come to a conclusion as to whether or not violence in entertainment is justified and whether or not it should be censored. Television with its far reaching influence spreads across the globe. Its most important role is that of reporting the news and maintaining communication between people around the world.

Television’s most influential, yet most serious aspect is its shows for entertainment. Violent children’s shows like Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and adult shows like NYPD Blue and Homicide almost always fail to show human beings being able to resolve their differences in a non-violent manner, instead they show a reckless attitude that promotes violent action first with reflection on the consequences later. In one episode of NYPD Blue three people were murdered in the span of an hour.

Contemporary television creates a seemingly insatiable appetite for amusement of all kinds without regard for social or moral benefits” (Schultze 41). Findings over the past twenty years by three Surgeon Generals, the Attorney General’s Task Force on Family Violence, the American Medical Association, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical authorities indicate that televised violence is harmful to all of us, but particularly to the mental health of children (Medved 70-71).

In 1989 the results of a five year study by the American Psychological Association indicated that the average child has witnessed 8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence on television by the time he or she has completed sixth grade. In further studies it was determined that by the time that same child graduates from high school he or she will have spent 22,000 hours watching television, twice as many hours as he or she has spent in school (Bruno 124).

In a study by the Centers for Disease Control, published by the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), it was shown that homicide rates had doubled between the introduction of television in the 1950’s and the end of the study in 1994. In that same study other possible causes for the vast increases in violence were studied, “the ‘baby boom’ effect, trends in urbanization, economic trends, trends in alcohol abuse, the role of capital punishment, civil unrest, the availability of guns, and exposure to television”(Lamson 32).

Each of these purported causes was tested in a variety of ways to see whether it could be eliminated as a credible contributor to doubling the crime rate in the United States, and one by each of them was invalidated, except for television. Children average four hours of television per day, and in the inner city that increases to as much as eleven hours a day, with an average of eight to twelve violent incidents per hour. It is also interesting to note that violence occurs some fifty-five times more often on television than it does in the real world (Medved 156).

FBI and census data show the homicide arrest rate for seventeen-year-olds more than doubled between 1985 and 1991, and the rates for fifteen-and sixteen-year-olds increased even faster. Movies also add their fair share to the problem of violence in society. “Researchers have established that copycat events are not an anomaly. Statistically-speaking, they are rare, but predictable, occurences. Television shows, novels, but especially movies-all can trigger copycat violence” (Medved 72).

As recently as November of 1995, New York City officials believed that the burning of a toll-booth clerk was a result of copycat violence, resulting from a similar scene in the movie Money Train. In 1994, Nathan Martinez shot and killed his stepmother and half sister after watching the movie Natural Born Killers at least six times. “Later, Martinez, who had shaved his head and wore granny sun glasses like Natural Born Killer’s main character Mickey Knox, reportedly told a friend, “It’s nothing like the movies”(Purtell 57).

In a 1993 film, The Program, there was a scene showing college football players lying in the center of a highway in an attempt to show their courage and dedication to their sport. This movie was later blamed for inspiring real-life imitators; (one of whom died). In numorous experiments based at pre-schools, researchers have observed children playing before and after seeing violent movies and television shows. “Following the violent program the children’s play is invaribly more aggressive. They are much more likely to hit, punch, kick, and grab to get their way.

In other words, violent entertainment teaches children how to use aggression for personal gain” (Medved 75). It is also hard to believe that movies like Rambo III with one hundred and six killings and Terminator 2 which showed countless killings plus a nuclear holocaust have at one time had their own line of children’s action figures even though both movies are rated R. One must seriously consider the idea that the movie studios are targeting a younger and easily influenced main audience. The ancient Greeks believed t….. hat violence should never be shown on stage, because people imitated what they saw.

Because of this they would only show the results of violence in order to deter any violent activity. The Greeks slowly but surely moved away from this idea as did other playwrights, and by the late 1500’s a new writer with a new view on violence was beginning to write plays. His name was William Shakespeare. Many critics were bothered by Shakespeare’s failure to follow the rules of the ancient Greeks, especially the rules concerning violence, but they also objected to Shakespeare’s comic sexual passages, which they considered vulgar.

Shakespeare was a writer during what has historically been called the Elizabethan era. Shakespeare’s plays reflect the shift from optimism to pessimism in Elizabethan society. “Elizabethans were keenly aware of death and the brevity of life” (Info Find), but death and violence fascinated the Elizabethans. “They flocked to the beheadings of traitors whose heads were exhibited on poles and watched as criminals were hanged, and they saw the rotting corpses dangle from the gallows for days” (The Student Handbook 2: 591). Elizabethans, literature and lives were very violent.

In Shakespeare’s play Hamlet all the main characters die through murder or suicide, all of which is shown on stage. Those critics who say excessive violence has only become a common occurence in today’s entertainment, should watch Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus with its’ stage direction, “Enter a messenger with two heads and a hand” (Klavan 98), or they should watch as quarts of stage blood are poured all over the “victims” in that same play. Novels, just like television, movies, and plays can cause violence. Throughout history novels have been the cause of violent behavior.

Those who say people can’t be influenced by books, should really look into the influence that a book called Uncle Tom’s Cabin had ten years prior to the Civil War. In 1851 Uncle Tom’s Cabin, written by Harriet Beecher Stowe was published. The novel told of the hardships and cruelties faced by African-American slaves in the south. The novel popularlized the abolitionist movement and is believed to have been a major cause for the Civil War, which even though a noble cause, resulted in over 500,000 deaths (The Student Handbook 2: 592). In 1980 Mark Chapman, a former mental patient, shot and killed John Lennon.

When asked why he did it, he indicated that he got the idea to kill Lennon from J. D. Salinger’s novel The Catcher in the Rye (590). He felt that he and the main character in the story, Holden Caufield, were very similar because they were both angry social outcasts, who were recovering from a mental breakdown (590). Violence is prominent in children’s novels too. R. L. Stine’s novel The Babysitter III, tells of decapitating a baby and in Christopher Pike’s novel, Monster, there is a graphic description of the effects of a shotgun being fired at a person’s head at close range.

Roderick McGillis, a professor of English at the University of Calgary and author of a book on children’s literature, has written that, “What disturbs me is that we’re developing in our culture, in our cities, a kind of siege mentality. A lot of thes books reinforce this, make it sort of normal to think that the world is a place in which violence can erupt at any moment” (Gray 54). With all of this evidence it is hard to ignore the fact that violence in entertainment can cause violence in society. This paper has now shown that there are copycat kilers who get the idea for their crimes from entertainment.

It has also been shown that the more violent movies and television children watch the more likely thay are to become aggressive and violent. Violence in entertainment and society is not isolated to the present, it was also very prominent in the writings of Shakespeare. With the evidence showing that violence in entertainment causes real life violence, it is very hard to say that violence in entertainment is justifiable. When little children and adults alike, fall victim to entertainment’s violent influence it is not justifiable and it is especially not justifiable when violent entertainment creates real life victims.

Is censorship the answer to the problem of violent entertainment? Should we tell people what they can or can’t read or watch? The simple answer to this question is no, we can’t censor violent entertainment. The First Amendment clearly states that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The instinct to censor is the tragic flaw of utopian minds. “Our first job,” said Plato in his classic attack on the democratic system , “is to oversee the work of the story writers, and to accept any good stories they write, but reject the others” (Klavan 96). If the government ever did censor violent entertainment who knows where they would stop, or even if they would. Perhaps they would try to censor violent speech or try to censor the speech of those who disagreed with the actions of the government.

The simple message is don’t promote censorship, because it could easily get out of hand, and as the old saying goes “the road to hell is paved with good intentions. ” There are then only two ways to get rid of the violent entertainment in our lives: we could shame those who make the violent movies, television shows, books, and plays, into having a social conscience, making them be less prone to creating violent entertainment; or we could simply solve the problem ourselves, with a push of a button, or the turn of a page.

Violence in the basis upon which we live. Wherever we go there is some form or act of violence. Most people have lost the concept of right and wrong. The line that once stood between them is now blurred. People find that they do no harm when they commit an act thats wrong. Violence is seen in many forms today that there was ever before. Media has a large part in broadcasting violence. Violence is due to some of these issues such as easy access to weapons, the people who commit crimes have low self-worth and self esteem and religion has ecome a lesser and lesser part of society.

In the United States they have the Second Amendment which is the right to bear arms. This means anyone in the United States can have a gun. In the States it is said that they have enough guns to arm all the adults and half of the children. Then they wonder why their children go out and shoot people at their school. If they were such a gun happy country they would not have one of the highest death rates (by gun wounds) in the world. Since the access to many forms of weapons is gained to easily it is hard to regulate who has weapons and who doesnt.

Many people who do own weapons get injured or even die from their very own weapons. The Internet also makes it easily capable to make weapons such as bombs. Although the Internet can not be controlled the access to information on any subject is great. In America they have the easiest access to weapons. Most of the kids who had been found guilty of shooting their peers at school had very low self-esteem and self-worth. Most of these kids could have been helped in one way or another.

Teachers, parents, and friends of these people could have seen the warning signs. When children mope around and think nothing of themselves there is something wrong. A lot of tragedies could have been averted . If a lot more influence was put on thinking higher and better of yourself many of these children would be alive or free. Also, many of these children had been taunted or teased. If we could raise awareness on this many children would be free of depression. Most of all depression is the main cause for self-worth and self-esteem.

If these kids had not been taunted they would have not sought revenge. Now a days in a catholic school when asked most kids they said they did not go to church at all. If religion was a lot more reinforced would there be so much violence? People find other types of religion much more attractive. Such as cults and gangs. They find they belong more and the benefits are greater. They have false hopes in false gods. Also the lack of a solid family life results in poor knowledge of individuality; who they are and where they belong.

In conclusion the awareness for violence needs to be looked at. How many school shootings, deaths, and other teen violence acts does it take before we realize what has gone wrong. We shouldnt have to sit there and see out friends die because of these savage acts caused by a minor dispute. Everyone needs to listen up and learn. We need to avoid the useless acts of violence. Its easier said than done but once we crack down on violence there will be a lasting difference.

Found at the scene of the crime two dead bodies stabbed brutally, and left to die at their house. This was the story that shocked the country in 1991. This was the start of the O. J. Simpson domestic abuse case that is still going on today. Unfortunately events like this happen many times over everyday in many setting all over the United states; however the victims of the other cases don’t get nearly as much publicity. Some facts about domestic abuse: An average of nine out of 10 women have to be turned away from shelters on.

The reason so few cases get assigned initially is the police usually on’t have enough officers to meet the demand At the Portland Women’s Crisis Line, where calls have doubled since the killings of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman, they welcome the increased attention. From July 19,through March 31, 1993 a total of 3,665 domestic violence cases were reviewed in Portland Oregon. Of those, only 281 cases resulted in some action taken against the accused abuser. Some of this is because there is not enough police, but it is mostly because the abused person is scared.

For the last six months of 1993 and the first three months of 1994 Portland averaged about 1,000 calls each month or 12,000 calls a year. In January 1992, 30 criminal domestic violence complaints were issued. For January 1994, the number was more than 100. Nationally, estimates range from 2 to 4 million women assaults each year. Some studies show that 20 to 30 percent of all women who seek help at hospital emergency rooms are there because of domestic violence. Kyra Woods never made it to the emergency room. Whoever killed her saw to that.

She suffered 13 stab wounds to the back five of them so violent the knife came out the other side of her body. Wood’s mother, Mable, and two aunts wept quietly in a back row of the ourtroom as the prosecution argued against bail for Woods’ former boyfriend Jackson. Rod Underhill, the prosecutor, painted a picture of domestic violence. He told of a dramatic moment after the killing, when Woods’ 4-year-old son, holding a teddy bear, re- enacted the attack. “He put his hands around the neck of the bear and shook it,” Underhill said. “He began to pound it with a closed fist and slug it. Mable Woods said that her daughter never told her much about any abuse.

Neighbors, however, told police of hearing the couple fight violently. According to police reports, one neighbor said, “They fought so hard the pictures on the all shook back and forth. ” Jackson has pleaded innocent. His attorney, Angel Lopez, points out that no murder weapon has been found. He said the account from the 4-year-old boy could not be matched with any others, and he pointed out inconsistencies in the boy’s statements. Bail was denied. Jackson was accused of killing his former girlfriend, Kyra Woods, by stabbing her 13 times.

His bail hearing normally would have merited little public attention. What brought out the cameras and reporter was the Simpson case. Children are often the unseen victims of domestic abuse. they see one of their parents being harmed and this leads to high stress. Boys tend to be much more hostile when raised in a broken home. They are also ten times more likely to be abusive when they grow up. Girls raised in an abusive family tend to be very shy and afraid of boys. When they grow up they are 50 times more likely to marry an abusive husband.

The effect of domestic abuse on society is negative, but unfortunately it does not get much publicity unless it involves a figure that is well known such as O. J. Simpson. Another sad thing is that people often shrug off domestic abuse calling it a personal matter because they don’t want to get involved or they are afraid of what people will think about them Survivors have found the emotional strength to break from their abusers through different means: a hot-line number remembered from a restroom wall, a wallet card of crisis numbers from a pediatrician who would not overlook a mother’s black eye.

A grown child begging her mother to flee–and a shelter with an open bed. The women, some with their identities changed to protect their privacy, talked about shame, guilt, fear of triggering even greater violence, low self- worth, isolation, embarrassment, numbing depression, concern for children, foiled escapes, a unrealistic sense of reality, a walking-on-eggshells existence nd, perhaps above all, an illogical hope that something would change. “the abuser can make everything sound so good,” says Florence A. Reid, 45, now living in transitional housing through Bradley- Angle House after 10 years in a violent marriage and another 13 year relationship, in an abusive relationship both with men who were full of promises after the pummelings.

Even now, 25 years later, after dozens of broken ribs, a broken jaw, pushes downstairs, and out a car, and thrice-weekly bouts with her husband sometimes drunk, sometimes sober–kicking with his work boots as she lay on the floor; ven now, Reid has pipe dreams of living happily with this teen-age love, of sitting on a front porch and talking about the old days. Wouldn’t that be nice? ” asks Reid. “Just live a normal life with the father of my children. ”

“The first time I tried leaving my husband was 1972. I took the kids to a friend’s house,” she remembers. “He found me and brought a gun with him. Of course, I just went back. ” In 1992, after dozens of tries, Ruth left for the last time, with the help of a daughter, and ended up at West Women’s & Children’s Shelter. Ruth, who now works part-time at a bank, sighs. “I don’t know. For years, y excuse was the kids. And of course, I realize that was probably the worst thing I did for them.

And I always thought, ‘Things will get better if I do this. ‘” Other women clung to similar fantasies, sure the goodness and charm would return–if they could love him better, do everything right. When someone abuses another person they often have a certain attitude such as thinking that it is the abused persons fault and that they brought it upon themselves. extensive studies have shown this. The abuser often blames the person who was abused for their troubles. Abusers often have a hard time communicating. Unfortunately the abuser is rarely gets action taken against them.

But when they do it is often very serious. The least that could happen is that the abuser gets a restraining order. In more serious cases there can be a number of penalties ranging from short prison term to a life sentence. This is the information that I found when I looked up domestic abuse. As you can see some of these facts are rather grim but people are becoming more open to ideas and people are reporting more than ever. I hope that this stops being the most un reported crime in the United States so that we can get the problem under control.

A problem not taken seriously The first reaction upon hearing about the topic of battered men, for many people, is that of incredulity. Battered husbands are a topic for jokes (such as the cartoon image of a woman chasing her husband with a rolling-pin).

One researcher noted that wives were the perpetrators in 73% of the depictions of domestic violence in newspaper comics (Saenger 1963). Battered husbands have historically been either ignored or subjected to ridicule and abuse. In 18th-century France, a battered husband “was made to wear an outlandish outfit and ride backwards around the village on a donkey” (Steinmetz & Lucca 1988).

Even those of us who like to consider ourselves liberated and open-minded often have a difficult time even imagining that husband battering could take place. Although feminism has opened many of our eyes about the existance of domestic violence, and newspaper reports often include incidents of abuse of wives, the abuse of husbands is a rarely discussed phenomenon. One reason researchers and others had not chosen to investigate husband battering is because it was thought to be a fairly rare occurrence. Police reports seemed to bear this out (Steinmetz 1977), with in some cases a ratio of 12 to 14. emale victims to every one male victim.

But another reason is that because women were seen as weaker and more helpless than men due to sex roles, and men on the other hand were seen as more sturdy and self-reliant, the study of abused husbands seemed relatively unimportant. Research begins to show the reality In 1974, a study was done which compared male and female domestic violence. In that study, it was found that 47% of husbands had used physical violence on their wives, and 33% of wives had used violence on their husbands (Gelles 1974).

Half of the respondents in this study were selected from either cases of domestic violence reported to the police, or those identified by the social service agency. Also in 1974, a study was released showing that the number of murders of women by men (17. 5% of total homicides) was about the same as the number of murders of men by women (16. 4% of total homicides). This study (Curtis 1974), however, showed that men were three times as likely to assault women as vice-versa. These statistics came from police records. [The murder statistic was no big news, by the way.

In 1958, an investigation of spousal homicide between 1948 and 1952 found that 7. 8% of murder victims were husbands murdered by wives, and 8% were wives murdered by husbands (Wolfgang 1958). More recently, in a study of spousal homicide in the period from 1976 to 1985, it was found that there was an overall ratio of 1. 3:1. 0 of murdered wives to murdered husbands, and that “Black husbands were at greater risk of spouse homicide victimization than Black wives or White spouses of either sex” (Mercy & Saltzman 1989)]

The subject of husband-battering had finally been addressed, but not to the great satisfaction of anyone. Although it had finally been shown that there was violence being perpetrated both by wives and husbands, there was no information about relative frequency or severity, or who initiated the abuse and who was acting in self defense. Furthermore, some researchers became concerned that the use of police or social services references in choosing subjects to study might be biasing the results.

In short, they recognized that battered husbands might be nearly invisible next to their female counterparts. In 1976, for instance, in a critique of the Curtis report (which found women less likely to assault, but as likely to murder, as men), Wilt & Bannon wrote that “nonfatal violence committed by women against men is less likely to be reported to the police than is violence by men against women; thus, women assaulters who come to the attention of the police are likely to be those who have produced a fatal result.

Steinmetz uncovers some suprises In 1977, Suzanne Steinmetz released results from several studies showing that the percentage of wives who have used physical violence is higher than the percentage of husbands, and that the wives’ average violence score tended to be higher, although men were somewhat more likely to cause greater injury. She also found that women were as likely as men to initiate physical violence, and that they had similar motives for their violent acts (Steinmetz 1977-78).

Steinmetz concluded that “the most unreported crime is not wife beating — it’s husband beating” (Langley & Levy 1977). In 1979, a telephone survey was conducted in which subjects were asked about their experiences of domestic violence (Nisonoff & Bitman 1979). 15. 5% of the men and 11. 3% of the women reported having hit their spouse; 18. 6% of the men and 12. 7% of the women reported having been hit by their spouse. In 1980, a team of researchers, including Steinmetz, attempted to address some concerns about the earlier surveys (Straus, Gelles & Steinmetz, 1980).

They created a nationally representative study of family violence and found that the total violence scores seemed to be about even between husbands and wives, and that wives tended to be more abusive in almost all categories except pushing and shoving. Strauss & Gelles did a followup survey in 1985, comparing their data to a 1975 survey (Strauss & Gelles 1986). They found that in that decade, domestic violence against women dropped from 12. 1% of women to 11. 3% while domestic violence against men rose from 11. 6% to 12. 1%. The rate of severely violent incidents dropped for both groups: From 3. to 3. 0% of women victimized and from 4. 6% to 4. 4% for men.

In 1986, a report appeared in Social Work, the journal of the National Association of Social Workers (Nov. /Dec. 1986) on violence in adolescent dating relationships, in which it was found that girls were violent more frequently than boys. Another report on premarital violence (O’Leary, et al) found that 34% of the males and 40% of the females reported engaging in some form of physical aggression against their mates in a year. 17% of women and 7% of men reported engaging in severe physical aggression. % of the men and 30% of the women reported having been abused.

Also in 1986, Marriage and Divorce Today, a newsletter for family therapy practitioners, reported on a study done by Pillemer and Finkelhor of the Family Violence Research Laboratory of the University of New Hampshire. The study, based on interviews of over 2000 elderly persons in the Boston metropolitan area, found that 3. 2% of the elderly had been abused. 52% of the abuse victims were men. Women’s violence is hard to believe The idea of women being violent is a hard thing for many people to believe.

It goes against the stereotype of the passive and helpless female. This, in spite of the fact that women are known to be more likely than men to commit child abuse and child murder (Daly & Wilson 1988 report 54% of parent-child murders where the child is under 17 were committed by the mother in Canada between 1974 and 1983, for instance. The Statistical Abstract of the United States 1987 reports that of reported child maltreatment cases between 1980 and 1984 between 57. 0% and 61. 4% of these were perpetrated by the mother. Nagi 1977 found 53. of perpetrators were female, 21% male and 22. 6% both.

Note that because mothers tend to have more access to children than do fathers that these results should not be interpreted to mean that were things equal, women would still commit more abuse). In addition, a study in a doctoral dissertation by psychologist Vallerie Coleman of 90 lesbian couples, showed that 46% had experienced repeated violent incidents (Garcia, 1991). Results like these are greeted with great suspicion by those who see domestic violence as a political issue to be exploited rather than a social problem to be solved.

Studies of women who murder Coramae Mann, a criminologist at Indiana University, studied the case records of all murders committed by women between 1979 and 1983 in six major U. S. cities. Her findings contradicted commonly-held ideas about women who murder, and she was criticized by some people for this. “They would raise the question, ‘Well you have these poor battered women. ‘ I said these weren’t poor battered women. Many already had violent criminal records. They weren’t weak or dependent. They were angry. ”

Strauss & Gelles commented in their 1986 report that “violence by wives has not been an object of public concern… In fact, our 1975 study was criticized for presenting statistics on violence by wives. ” Yet domestic violence is an issue framed in the media and in the political arena as one of male perpetrators and female victims. Violence in gay and lesbian relationships is rarely discussed, and violence against men in heterosexual relationships less so. Battered men wonder where to turn When it is addressed, there is a response.

When I became the caretaker of a memorial fund for a male victim of domestic violence, I unexpectedly took on the role of counselor for men calling from all over the country to talk to me at length about their or their father’s victimization. When the subject of battered husbands was raised on British television and the London Times did an article on the subject, hundreds of calls came in from male victims to a special helpline set up by a Women’s Aid group (Rooke 1991). The terms “wife beating” and “battered women” have become political expressions, rather than descriptions of reality.

And because the issue of domestic violence has been substantially taken out of the arena of serious sociological study, and thrust into the political arena, the definitions of spousal abuse, and the proposed remedies to spousal abuse, will be political ones — not necessarily ones which reflect the reality of the existing problems. In a book on domestic violence, Roger Langley and Richard C. Levy conclude a chapter on battered husbands by saying, “Husband abuse should not be viewed as merely the opposite side of the coin to wife abuse. Both are part of the same problem, which should be described as one person abusing another person.

The problem must be faced and dealt with not in terms of sex but in terms of humanity” (Langley & Levy 1977, p. 208). Ironically the book in which this quote appears is entitled “Wife Beating: The Silent Crisis. ” Laws favor female victims Legislation about domestic violence is always orientated toward the female victim. For instance, in 1991, Senator Joseph Biden again introduced the “Violence Against Women Act” which at this writing has passed the senate Judiciary Committee. It has a section called “Safe homes for Women” which specifically allocates funds to “women’s” shelters (Biden 1991, also see Boxer 1990).

Also note actions like that of Ohio governor Richard F. Celeste who granted clemency to 25 women who were in prison for murdering their husbands. The reason he gave for this was the “Battered Woman Syndrome” which, obviously, no man can claim as his defense (Wilkerson 1990). There is very little concern shown either for the idea of making spousal abuse a capital crime with the victim as extra-judicial executioner, nor for the idea that perhaps some of the men who murder their spouses might be suffering from an analogous “Battered Man Syndrome. ”

A frightening case from Ohio There is only one case I am aware of in which a man was able to use a similar defense. Warren Farrell writes about it in his book Why Men Are the Way They Are (Farrell 1986, p. 231): Betty King had beaten, slashed, stabbed, thrown dry acid on, and shot her husband. Eddie King had not sought prosecution when she slashed his face with a carpet knife, nor when she left him in a parking lot with a blade in his back. Neither of these incidents even made the police records as statistics. She was only arrested twice — when she stabbed him so severely in the back and so publicly (in a bar) that the incidents had to be reported.

All these stabbings, shootings, and acid-throwings happened during a four-year marriage. During a subsequent shouting match on the porch of a friend’s house, Betty King once again reached into her purse. This time Eddie King shot her. When an investigation led to a verdict of self-defense, there was an outcry of opposition from feminists and the media. Farrell compares this case, in which “a two-second delay could have meant his death,” to that of the celebrated case made into the television movie The Burning Bed in which the protagonist murdered her husband while he slept. A serious problem

In conclusion, I think that the available data show that husband battering is a serious problem, comparable to the problem of wife battering. Even if the statistics collected in the last several years are completely wrong and only one in 14 victims of spousal abuse are men, these are men who are hurting and need services that are currently not available. There is such a strong stigma against being a battered man, carried over from mideval times when the battered man was considered the guilty party, that special attention should be paid to reaching out to these victims. Simply opening up “Women’s Shelters” to men is not enough.

The current use of gaming as an alternative form of making money on reservations may have negative effects on tribal communities. For instance, many who oppose gaming say that casinos are also a factor with crime. In addition, the issue of gaming itself is an occasional source of conflict among tribe members, conflict that in the past has erupted into violence between other people. This conflict involves concern over the impact gaming might have upon Indians. Some people are worried that the Indians money is not being handled very well.

Things that have taken place in the Elem Indian Colony in Lake County, California increase the possibility of violence on reservations that have casinos. For many tribes, gaming is a chance for other sorts of income in the face of losing money, the traditional source of cash on most reservations where natural resources are not very likely and lack of funds discourages private investment. The implications of partial sovereignty allotted to reservation Indians were initially realized in 1979 when the Seminoles opened the first high-stakes bingo hall on a Florida reservation.

Following a series of trials favoring gaming on reservations, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 caused the present situation of Indian gambling initiatives. According to the National Indian Gaming Commission, approximately one third of federally recognized Indian tribes in the US have negotiated agreements to run casinos, over a hundred of which are currently at work. These casinos, along with other gambling operations, generated close to $4 billion in gross revenues last year.

While gaming has produced a lot of money for a number of tribes as well as the communities surrounding their reservations, it has caused other effects as well. First, some have claimed that gaming results in increased crime. Second, there have been several instances of intratribal violence linked to disagreements of gaming. Even without gaming, reservations experience crime rates significantly higher than the national averages. In one of many, 15. 4 homicides are reported among every 100,000 Native Americans every year, where only 9 homicides occur for every 100,000 US residents in general.

Whether crime rates such as this have increased since the era of gaming began is presently being debated. A 1992 study of the effects of casinos on one Lower Sioux reservation in Minnesota suggests that crime – including drug use and domestic violence – increased significantly after gaming started. One such person is Genevieve Jackson, a council member of Shiprock Navajo reservation in Arizona, who claims that casinos are associated with “increased family violence and child abuse.

Others worry about the possibility of violent theft of cash-carrying gamblers, while still others fear organized crime activity. In California, at least two tribal leaders have been murdered after claiming that Indians were not receiving a fair share of profits from casinos run with the help of outsiders. Nevertheless, many disagree that gambling is tied to increased violent crime. Federal authorities that deal with crime on reservations, such as the FBI and US attorneys, have reported no increase in violence related to casinos.

Richard Hill, Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA), corroborated this assessment last month when he addressed the House Judiciary Committee, asserting that tribes are actually experiencing a decrease in crime. He explained this decrease as resulting from fewer crimes being committed “which spring from poverty, unemployment, alcoholism, and despair. ” Although it might be too soon to gauge the effect gaming will have on crime in general, there have been several outstanding occasions on which the very issue of gaming itself has resulted in conflict and even bloodshed among tribe members.

Over the years, both violent and nonviolent confrontations have been attributed to factional disputes concerning the existence and/or implementation of gaming on reservations from New York to North Carolina to Arizona. An example of violence occurred at the beginning of October 1992 in California, less than one hundred miles north of San Francisco. In 1992, violence exploded at Clear Lake’s Elem Pomo Indian Community between two disputing tribes. Chairman Thomas Brown’s control of the reservation’s two casinos.

Over the following six days, 10 residents were wounded in gun battles while nearly 70 others fled the ranch to escape the violence. The conflict arose from a lawsuit filed in March accusing Brown of embezzling money from one of the ranch’s casinos. On October 13,1992 the same day law enforcement officials achieved a cease-fire between the warring factions, the NIGA decreed the closing of both casinos. This episode in California is one of the most recent in a series of gambling-related confrontations on the nation’s reservations.

Earlier that year, three men were killed in a shoot-out at a Seneca reservation in New York during a power struggle believed by many to have been exacerbated by the presence of casinos. New York is also home to the St. Regis Mohawk reservation where, in 1990, two men were killed in gunfights during a “civil war” between two different gaming reservations. In an attempt on a Cherokee Reservation in North Carolina, the Tribal Council refused to hold a referendum on whether to allow a proposed casino despite the existence of a petition requesting one signed by 70 percent of the registered voters.

As with other gaming-linked violence, federal officials have been quick to dismiss occurrences of armed intratribal confrontation involving casinos as rare. Following the 92 Elem disturbance, a spokesman for the National Indian Gaming Commission stated, “It’s something we haven’t really seen elsewhere. ” These sentiments are the same as those said in response to similar incidents in the past. For example, a Bureau of Indian Affairs attorney in Washington said of the St. Regis conflict: “It certainly is not a reflection of Indian gambling in general.

Current legislation and court decisions leave regulation of reservation gaming to tribe members themselves. Local and state authorities can enter intratribal confrontations only after shots have been fired, and the federal government must wait until violence has occurred or a suit has been filed. Therefore, as suspicions of corruption within tribal organizations and over traditions continue to surface, the reservation must develop new ways of dealing with problems concerning any conflict.

In conclusion, I would have to say that the violence on these has been a problem in the past, but I hope they are through. Native Americans have had to fight all their lives for what they believe in, I hope that it doesnt continue because Native Americans, in my opinion are one of the most pure races we have left in our society. It seems as if all they have done since theyve been in America is give. With casinos they have benefited just about everyone as far as jobs and a source of entertainment.

Gangs are a violent reality that people have to deal with in today’s cities. What has made these groups come about? Why do kids feel that being in a gang is both an acceptable and prestigious way to live? The long range answer to these questions can only be speculated upon, but in the short term the answers are much easier to find. On the surface, gangs are a direct result of human beings’ personal wants and peer pressure. To determine how to effectively end gang violence we must find the way that these morals are given to the individual. Unfortunately, these can only be hypothesized.

However, by looking at the way humans are influenced in society, I believe there is good evidence to point the blame at several institutions. These include the forces of the media, the government, theatre, drugs and our economic system. On the surface, gangs are caused by peer pressure and greed. Many teens in gangs will pressure peers into becoming part of a gang by making it all sound glamorous. Money is also an crucial factor. A kid (a 6-10 year old, who is not yet a member) is shown that s/he could make $200 to $400 for small part time gang jobs.

Although these are important factors they re not strong enough to make kids do things that are strongly against their morals. One of the ways that kids morals are bent so that gang violence becomes more acceptable is the influence of television and movies. The average child spends more time at a TV than she/he spends in a classroom. Since nobody can completely turn off their minds, kids must be learning something while watching the TV. Very few hours of television watched by children are educational, so other ideas are being absorbed during this period of time.

Many shows on television today are extremely violent nd are often shown this from a gang’s perspective. A normal adult can see that this is showing how foully that gangs are living. However, to a child this portrays a violent gang existance as acceptable. ‘The Ends Justifies the Means’ mentality is also taught through many shows where the “goody guy” captures the “bad guy” through violence and is then being commended. A young child sees this a perfectly acceptable because he knows that the “bad guy” was wrong but has no idea of what acceptable apprehension techniques are.

Gore in television also takes a big part in influencing young minds. Children see gory scenes and are fascinated by these things that they have not seen before. Older viewers see gore and are not concerned with the blood but rather with the pain the victim must feel. A younger mind doesn’t make this connection. Thus a gore fascination is formed, and has been seen in several of my peers. Unfortunately kids raised with this sort of television end up growing up with a stronger propensity to becoming a violent gang member or ‘violent- acceptant’ person. Gangs bring the delinquent norms of society into intimate contact with the individual. “1, (Marshall B Clinard, 963). So, as you can see if TV leads a child to believe that violence is the norm this will manifest itself in the actions of the child quite, often in a gang situation. This is especially the case when parents don’t spend a lot of time with their kids at the TV explaining what is right and what is wrong. Quite often newer books and some types of music will enforce this type of thought and ideas.

Once this mentality is installed in youngsters they become increasingly prone to being easily pushed into a gang situation by any problem at home or elsewhere. For instance, in poor amilies with many children or upper-middle class families where parents are always working, the children will often feel deprived of love. Parents can often feel that putting food on the table is enough love. Children of these families may often go to the gang firstly out of boredom and to belong somewhere. As time goes on, a form of love or kinship develops between the gang members and the child.

It is then that the bond between the kid and the gang is completed because the gang has effectively taken the place of the family. The new anti social structure of cities also effects the ase in which a boy/girl can join a gang. ” The formation of gangs in cities, and most recently in suburbs, is facilitated by the same lack of community among parents. The parents do not know what their children are doing for two reasons: First, much of the parents’ lives is outside the local community, while the children’s lives are lived almost totally within it.

Second, in a fully developed community, the network of relations gives every parent, in a sense, a community of sentries who can keep him informed of his child’s activities. In modern living-places (city r suburban), where such a network is attenuated, he no longer has such sentries. “2, (Merton Nisbet, 1971). In male gangs problems occur as each is the members tries to be the most manly. This often leads to all members participating in “one-up-manship”. Quite often this will then lead to each member trying to commit a bigger and more violent crime or simply more crimes than the others.

With all members participating in this sort of activity it makes for a never ending unorganized violence spree (A sort of Clockwork Orange mentality). In gangs with more intellegent members these eelings end up making each member want to be the star when the groups commit a crime. This makes the gang much more organized and improves the morale of members which in turn makes them more dangerous and very hard for the police to deal with and catch (There is nothing harder to find and deal with than organized teens that are dedicated to the group).

This sort of gang is usually common of middle or upper class people although it can happen in gangs in the projects and other low rent districts too. This “one-up-manship” is often the reason between rival gangs fighting. All gangs feel powerful and they want to be eared. To do this they try to establish themselves as the only gang in a certain neighborhood. After a few gang fights hatred forms and gang murders and drive-by’s begin to take place. When two gangs are at war it makes life very dangerous for citizens in the area.

Less that 40% of drive-by’s kill their intended victim yet over 60% do kill someone. This gang application is one of the many reasons that sexual sterotypes and pressure to conform to the same must be stopped. Lastly one of the great factors in joining a gang is for protection. Although from an objective point of view, we can ee joining a gang brings more danger than it saves you from, this is not always the way it is seen by kids. In slums such as the Bronx or the very worst case, Compton, children will no doubt be beaten and robbed if they do not join a gang.

Of course they can probably get the same treatment from rivals when in a gang. The gang also provides some money for these children who quite often need to feed their families. The reason kids think that the gang will keep them safe is from propoganda from the gangs. Gang members will say that no one will get hurt and make a public show of revenge if a member is urt or killed. People in low rent areas are most often being repressed due to poverty and most importantly, race.

This often results in an attitude that motivates the person to base his/her life on doing what the system that oppresses them doesn’t want. Although this accomplishes little it is a big factor in gang enrollment. So, as you have seen gangs are a product of the environment we have created for ourselves. Some of these factors include: oppression, the media, greed, violence and other gangs. There seems to be no way to end the problem of gangs without totally restructuring the modern economy and alue system.

Since the chance of this happening is minimal, we must learn to cope with gangs and try to keep their following to a minimum. Unfortunately there is no real organized force to help fight gangs. Of course the police are supposed to do this but this situation quite often deals with racial issues also and the police forces regularly display their increasing inability to deal fairly with these issues. What we need are more people to form organizations like the “Guardian Angels” a gang-like group that makes life very tough for street gangs that are breaking laws.

In the late Seventies, America became shocked and outraged by the rape, mutilation, and murder of over a dozen young, beautiful girls. The man who committed these murders, Ted Bundy, was later apprehended and executed. During his detention in various penitentiaries, he was mentally probed and prodded by psychologist and psychoanalysts hoping to discover the root of his violent actions and sexual frustrations. Many theories arose in attempts to explain the motivational factors behind his murderous escapades.

However, the strongest and most feasible of these theories came not from the psychologists, but from the man himself, “as a teenager, my buddies and I would all sneak around and watch porn. As I grew older, I became more and more interested and involved in it, [pornography] became an obsession. I got so involved in it, I wanted to incorporate [porn] into my life, but I couldn’t behave like that and maintain the success I had worked so hard for. I generated an alter-ego to fulfill my fantasies under-cover.

Pornography was a means of unlocking the evil I had burried inside myself” (Leidholdt 47). Is it possible that pornography is acting as the key to unlocking the evil in more unstable minds? According to Edward Donnerstein, a leading researcher in the pornography field, “the relationship between sexually violent images in the media and subsequent aggression and . . . callous attitudes towards women is much stonger statistically than the relationship between smoking and cancer” (Itzin 22).

After considering the increase in rape and molestation, sexual harassment, and other sex crimes over the last few decades, and also the corresponding increase of business in the pornography industry, the link between violence and pornogrpahy needs considerable study and examination. Once the evidence you will encounter in this paper is evaluated and quantified, it will be hard not come away with the realization that habitual use of pornographic material promotes unrealistic and unattainable desires in men that can leac to violent behavior toward women.

In order to properly discuss pornography, and be able to link it to violence, we must first come to a basic and agreeable understanding of what the word pornography means. The term pornogrpahy originates from two greek words, porne, which means harlot, and graphein, which means to write (Webster’s 286). My belief is that the combination of the two words was originally meant to describe, in literature, the sexual escapades of women deemed to be whores. As time has passed, this definition of pornography has grown to include any and all obscene literature and pictures.

At the present date, the term is basically a blanket which covers all types of material such as explicit literature, photography, films, and video tapes with varying degrees of sexual content. For Catherine Itzin’s research purposes pornogrpahy has been divided into three categories: The sexually explicit and violent; the sexually explicit and nonviolent, but subordinating and dehumanizing; and the sexually explicit, nonviolent, and nonsubordinating that is based upon mutuality.

The sexually explicit and violent is graphic, showing penetration and ejaculation. Also, it shows the violent act toward a woman. The second example shows the graphic sexual act and climax, but not a violent act. This example shows the woman being dressed is a costume or being ‘talked down’ to in order to reduce her to something not human; such as a body part or just something to have sex with, a body opening or an orifice. Not only does ‘erotica’ show the entire graphic sexual act, it also depicts an attraction between two people.

Her research consistently shows that harmful effects are associated with the first two, but that the third ‘erotica’, is harmless (22). These three categories basically exist as tools of discerning content. Although sometimes they overlap without a true distinction, as in when the film is graphic in the sexual act and also in violence, but shows the act as being a mutual activity between the people participating. In my view, to further divide pornography, it is possible to break it down into even simpler categories: soft and hard core pornography.

Hard core pornography is a combination of the sexually explicit and violent and the sexually explicit and nonviolent, but subordinating and dehumanizing categories, previously discussed. Soft core pornography is thought to be harmless and falls into the category known as ‘erotica’; which is the category based on mutuality. In hard core pornogrpahy, commonly rated XXX, you can see graphic depiction’s of violent sexual acts usually with a man or group of men, deriving sexual gratification from the degradation of a woman.

You can also see women participating in demoralizing sexual behavior among themselves for the gratification of men. In a triple-X movie all physical aspects are shown, such as extreme close-ups of genitalia, oral, vaginal, and anal penetration, and also ejaculation. Much of the time emphasis is put on the painful and humiliating experience of the woman, for the sole satisfaction of the male. Soft core pornography, or X-rated pornography, is less explicit in terms of what is shown and the sexual act is usually put in the light of mutual enjoyment for both the male and female parties(Cameron and Frazer 23).

Triple-X pornography is manufactured and sold legally in the United States. Deborah Cameron and Elizabeth Frazer point out that other forms of hard core pornography that have to be kept under wraps, made and sold illegally in underground ‘black’ markets. These are ultraviolent, ‘snuff’, and child pornography. Ultraviolent tapes or videos show the actual torture, rape, and sometime mutilation of a woman. ‘Snuff’ films go even future to depict the actual death of a victim, and child pornography reveals the use of under-age or pre-pubescent children for sexual purposes (17-18).

These types of pornogrpahy cross over the boundaries of entertainment and are definitely hard core. Now that pornography has been defined in a fashion mirroring its content, it is now possible to touch upon the more complex ways a community, as a society , views or defines it. Some have said it is impossible for a group of individuals to form a concrete opinion as to what pornography means. A U. S. Supreme Court judge is quoted as saying, “I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it” (Itzin 20).

This statement can be heard at community meetings in every state, city, and county across the nation. Community standards are hazy due to the fact that when asked what pornography is to them, most individuals cannot express or explain in words what pornography is, therefore creating confusion among themselves. Communities are left somewhat helpless in this matter since the federal courts passed legislation to keep pornography available to adults.

The courts assess that to ban or censor the material would be infringing on the public’s First Amendment Right (Carol 28). Maureen O’Brien quotes critics of a congressionally terminated bill, the Pornography Victim’s Compensation Act, as saying “That if it had passed, it would have had severely chilling effects on the First Amendment, allowing victims of sexual crimes to file suit against producers and distributors of any work that was proven to have had ‘caused’ the attack, such as graphic material in books, magazines, videos, films, and records” (7).

People in a community debating over pornography often have different views as to whether or not it should even be made available period, and some could even argue this point against the types of women used in pornography: “A far greater variety of female types are shown as desirable in pornography than mainstream films and network television have ever recognized: fat women, flat women, hairy women, aggressive women, older women, you name it” (Carol 25).

If we could all decide on just exactly what pornography is and what is acceptable, there wouldn’t be so much debate over the issue of censoring it. The bounds of community standards have been stretched by mainstreaming movies, opening the way even further for the legalization of more explicit fare (Jenish 53). In most contemporary communities explicit sex that is without violent or dehumanizing acts is acceptable in American society today. These community standards have not been around very long.

When movies were first brought out, they were heavily restricted and not protected by the First Amendment, because films then were looked upon only as diversionary entertainment and business. Even though sexual images were highly monitored, the movie industry was hit so hard during the Great Depression that film-makers found themselves sneaking in as much sexual content as possible, even then they saw that ‘sex sells’ (Clark 1029). Films were highly restricted throughout the 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s by the industry, but once independent films of the 60’s such as: “Bonnie and Clyde” and “Whose afraid of Virginia Woolfe? (Clark 1029-30), both with explicit language, sexual innuendo, and violence started out-performing the larger ‘wholesome’ production companies, many of the barriers holding sex and violence back were torn down in the name of profit .

Adult content was put into movies long ago, we have become more immune and can’t expect it to get any better or to go away. Porn is here for good. Pornography is a multi-million dollar international industry, ultimately run by organized crime all over the world, and is produced by the respectable mainstream publishing business companies (Itzin 21).

Although the publishing companies are thought to be ‘respectable’, people generally stereotype buyers and users of pornographic material as ‘dirty old men in trenchcoats’, but most patrons of adult stores are well-educated people with disposable income (Jenish 52). Porno movies provide adults of both genders with activities they normally wouldn’t get in everyday life, such as oral pleasures or different types of fetishes. Ultimately adult entertainment is just a quick-fix for grown-ups, as junk-food would be for small children. Pornography’s main purpose is to serve as masturbatory stimuli for males and to provide a sexual vent.

Although in the beginning, society saw it as perverted and sinful, it was still considered relatively harmless. Today there is one case studie, standing out from the rest, that tends to shatter this illusion. The study done my Monica D. Weisz and Christopher M. Earls used “eighty-seven males . . . that were randomly shown one of four films”, by researchers William Tooke and Martin Lalumiere: “Deliverance, Straw Dogs, Die Hard II, and Days of Thunder”, for a study on how they would react to questions about sexual violence and offenders after watching.

In the four films there is sexual aggression against a male, sexual aggression against a female, physical aggression, and neutrality-no explicit scenes of physical or sexual aggression. Out of this study the males were more acceptable of interpersonal violence and rape myths and also more attracted to sexual aggression. These same males were less sympathetic to rape victims and were noted less likely to find a defendant guilty of rape (71). These four above mentioned movies are mainstreamed R-rated films.

If a mainstream movie can cause this kind of distortion of value and morality, then it should become evident that continuous viewing/use of pornographic films depicting violent sex and aggression could lead vulnerable persons into performing or participating in sexual violence against their partners or against a stranger. Bill Marshall, psychology professor at Queen’s University and director of a sexual behavior clinic in Kingston, interviewed one-hundred and twenty men, between the years 1980 and 1985, who had molested children or raped women.

In his conclusion he found that pornography appeared to be a significant factor in the chain of events leading up to a deviant act in 25% of these cases (Nicols 60). The results of this study should prove that pornography obviously has a down side to it. According to Mark Nicols, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan, Neil Malamuth, concludes quite cautiously that some messages combined with other factors, including the viewer’s personality type, in pornography can lead to antisocial behavior and make individuals less sensitive to violence.

Dr. Marshall also quotes men in Nicols article as saying, “that they looked at pornography with the intent to masturbate, but then became aroused, and decided to go out and assault a woman or child. ” Men who are drawn into pornography and use it frequently, have also been proven to suggest more lenient prison terms for sex offenders” (60). If this previous statement is true, should we reevaluate how many men serve on juries for these trials? Itzin gives possible support for these theories.

It can be found in the case of an ex-prostitute who had her pubic hair removed with a jackknife and was forced by her pimp to be filmed reenacting what they had seen in pornographic movies; she was sexually assaulted and forced to have intercourse with animals, generally dogs. Another such case is one of a woman who reports having metal clips attached to her breasts, being tied to a chair, and being raped and beaten continuously for twelve hours (22-24). The dehumanizing, degradation, and reduction of a woman’s body isn’t just a result of viewed pornography, it is often inseminated into the production of a pornographic project.

During the making of “Deep Throat”, a 1970’s pornographic film, Linda Marchiano (a. k. a. Linda Lovelace), was presented to the public as a liberated woman with an ever present and unfulfilled appetite for fellatio. What isn’t known to the general public is that during the making of the movie, she was hypnotized to suppress the natural gagging reaction, was tortured when caught trying to escape, and also held at gun-point by her boss, who threatened her with death (Itzin 22). Ms.

Marchiano did escape and when her story was told, it was repeated by a number of women in the pornography business. According to D’Arcy Jenish many children are lured into the pornography industry by choosing first to model. These young teen’s egos are boosted when they are told “[they have good bodies]”, and are asked “if they work out? “. More often than not, they are told “to take off [their] shirts”, and then asked “Do you feel nervous? ” (36). These youngsters honestly don’t know when too much is too much, and what they don’t know could put them in serious danger.

Calvin Klein, once known for being a reputable clothing designer, is now known for his racy ads using teens. Some feel he crossed the line when he chose this type of advertising. Jenish observes that these advertisements “featured an array of . . . teen-aged models dressed in loose jeans or hiked-up skirts, one showing bare breasts, others offering androgynous models kissing” (36). If adults in positions of power act this way, these youngsters cannot expect other adults to act any differently. Therefore they accept this type of behavior as normal.

Diana Russell claims that tactics like these are being used more often in advertising and television, which has led media watchdogs and anti-porn activists to believe that this sort of masked imitation of pornography tricks mainstream television viewers into having an “everybody’s doing it” attitude about pornography. She also feels that this attitude subconsciously leads them into seeking pornography out (39). We need to show the younger generation that everyone is not doing ‘it’, and that it is all right not to have sex if they feel pressured.

Another problem anti-pornography activists believe arises from regular viewing of pornography, is the acceptance of “rape myths”. Rape myth is a term pertaining to people’s views on rape, rapists, and sexual assaults, wherein it is assumed that the victim of a sexual crime is either partially or completely to blame (Allen 6). To help understand the rape myth a “Rape Myth Acceptance Scale” was established, which lists some of the most prominent beliefs that a person accepting the rape myth has. They are as follows: 1. A woman who goes to the home or apartment of a man on their first date implies that she is willing to have sex. . One reason that women falsely report a rape is that they frequently have a need to call attention to themselves. 3. Any healthy woman can successfully resist a rapist if she really wants to.

4. When women go around braless or wearing short skirts and tight tops, they are just asking for trouble. 5. In the majority or rapes, the victim is promiscuous or has a bad reputation. 6. If a girl engages in necking or petting and she lets things get out of hand, it is her own fault if her partner forces sex on her. 7. Women who get raped while hitchhiking get what they deserve. . Many women have an unconscious wish to be raped, and may then [subconsciously] set up a situation in which they are likely to be attacked. 9. If a woman gets drunk at a party and has intercourse with a man she’s just met there, she should be considered “fair game” to other males at the party who want to have sex with her too, whether she wants to or not (Burt 217). Pauline Bart reports that studies held simultaneously at UCLA and St. Xavier College on students, demonstrate that pornography does positively reinforce the rape myth.

Men and women were exposed to over four hours of exotic video (of varying types; i. e. soft, hard core, etc. ) and then asked to answer a set of questions meant to gage their attitudes of sex crimes. All the men were proven to be more accepting to rape myths, and surprisingly, over half of the women were also (123). Once again, the women in these films were portrayed as insatiable and in need of constant fulfillment. After so much exposure to women in this light from films and books, it is generally taken for granted that women should emulate this type of behavior in real life(125). comment?

Of all the studies and examples from real life situations connecting pornography with violent behavior and sexual aggressiveness, none are more concrete than the activities the Serbian military are part of every day now in the Bosnian war. Part of the “ethnic cleansing” process the Serbs are practicing in Bosnia involves the gang-raping of all Muslim and Croatian women. Andrea Dworkin states that it is mandatory for the Serbian soldiers to rape the wives and female children of Muslim men. Concentration camps are set up as brothels where women are ordered to satisfy the soldiers in the most painful and dehumanizing ways imaginable.

The women in these camps are taped with cam-corders and the videos are displayed everywhere throughout the camps to lower the woman’s will and need to resist. Were do the soldiers get the inspiration to commit these crimes, from commercial pornography. Serbian troops are basically force-fed porn; it is present all through training and is made readily available to (even pushed upon) the soldiers. They are basically asked to “watch and learn”. After the seed is planted not much is needed to be done, because they are naturally instilled with the desire to repeat what they have seen, and are not concerned with the feelings of the women.

They have seen that some women have no feelings and are meant to be used merely for sexual gratification (M2-M6). To add insult to injury, some of the tapes of these women being victimized have entered the black market, being sold internationally, possible infecting the minds of millions. Pornogrpahy has enamored itself as a large part of our modern society. It is seldom discussed and often hidden as a dirty secret, but porn still seems to play a major part in the shaping of our morals and behaviors.

Although some say pornography is relatively harmless, a considerable larger group seem to uphold the assumption the porn works in negative and disruptive ways on those who view it and participate. Nearly all the research supports this assumption, so it is evident the the topic is in need of much more examination and debate. Even though the majority of modern society views pornography as objectionable and sometimes obscene, there are some that do not agree with the assumption that pornography is guilty of the defamation of women and their sexual roles.

Social observationalists, such as Mary White, at the University of Michigan often agree with her statement on the part women play in pornogrpahy which explains that “since most pornographic material plays up to male fantasy, women are usually the aggressors, hence women are given a semblance of empowerment. Also, the majority of these women in the material are very attractive, therefore seen as the forms of beauty and desire, something to be respected and worked for” (72). Although White may not realize it, this statement reinforced most of the arguments made in support of the notion that pornography is subordinating and degrading to women.

By saying that being sexually aggressive gives a woman empowerment, she limits a woman’s ability to reach empowerment to sexual activity alone, and by claiming that the use of attractive women in pornographic material lends to a view of women being desirable, she inadvertently excludes women that don’t fit society’s mold of the model physical female, (i. e. overweight, small breasted, short, etc. ). Most of the arguments similar to White’s follow the same line of reasoning, and are easily broken down in the same manner as hers.

In regards to pornogrpahy perpetuating violent acts toward women, pornography defenders claim that the use of pornographic material can act as a cathartic release, actual lessening the likelihood of males committing violent acts. The reasoning is that the pornogrpahy can substitute for sex and that the ‘want’ to commit sexual crimes is acted out vicariously through the pornographic material (Whicclair 327). This argument, however, does not explain the crimes committed by serial killers like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacey, who regularly viewed pornography during the lengths of their times between murders and rapes (Scully 70).

By saying that pornogrpahy would reduce harm to women through cathartic effects, pornography defenders display a large lack in reasoning because through their argument the rise in the production of pornography would have led to a decrease in sexual crimes, but as has been shown previously, that simply is not true. Pornographers and pornography defenders proclaim that the link between pornography and violence is exaggerated and that the research linking pornography to sexual crimes is inconclusive.

They state that the fundamentals of sex crimes are found inherently in the individuals and that the sexual permissiveness of American society cannot be blamed on the increase of pornography’s availability (Jacobson 79). David Adams, a co-founder and executive director of Emerge, a Boston counseling center for male batterers, states, “that only a minority of his clients (perhaps 10 to 20 percent) use hard-core pornography. He estimates that half may have substance abuse problems, and adds that alcohol seems more directly involved in abuse than pornography” (Kaminer 115).

The statement made by Adams and the view that pornography does not contribute to the act of sex crimes is heavily outweighed, however, by the various studies connecting violence and pornography. Bill Marshall’s observations on his patients and the examples of individual crimes originating from pornography, show this acclimation to be invalidated. Some also say that attacks on pornography merely reflect the majority of feminist’s disdain for men, cynically stating that people who fear pornography think of all men as potential abusers, whose violent impulses are bound to be sparked by pornography (114).

Researcher Catherin MacKinnon, says that “pornography works as a behavioral conditioner, reinforcer, and stimulus, not as idea or advocacy” (114). However, this idea is proven to be false by the use of pornography in and by the Serbian military. This example shows that pornography does advocate sex crimes and that ideas of sexual violence are able to be stemmed from the viewing of pornography. Pornography has become to most just another one of those cold, nasty facts of life that cannot be stopped, so some choose to ignore it.

This attitude has to change. After reviewing the abuse and subordination delegated to women as an almost indisputable result of the mass infiltration of pornography into modern society, it should be impossible for someone not to want to do something about it. What can be done is for those concerned to try to spread the word and educate others as much as possible to the dangers of this sort of material. If people knew the roots of some of their more violent behavior, it could be deminished, thus protecting the future and health of our communities.

From its inception, in most cases, pornography is a media that links sexual gratification and violence together. This fact can only lead a rational mind to the conclusion that a chain of events will begin, combining sex and violence further in the minds of those who watch pornography and will ensure an unhealthy attitude towards women and their sexual identities. Only through discussion and individual action can the perpetuation of the negative impacts of pornography be swept from the closets and dark corners of the American household.

Gangs are a violent reality that people have to deal with in today’s cities. What has made these groups come about? Why do kids feel that being in a gang is both an acceptable and prestigious way to live? The long range answer to these questions can only be speculated upon, but in the short term the answers are much easier to find. On the surface, gangs are a direct result of human beings’ personal wants and peer pressure. To determine how to effectively end gang violence we must find the way that these morals are given to the individual. Unfortunately, these can only be hypothesized.

However, by looking at the way humans are influenced in society, I believe there is good evidence to point the blame at several institutions. These include the forces of the media, the government, theatre, drugs and our economic system. On the surface, gangs are caused by peer pressure and greed. Many teens in gangs will pressure peers into becoming part of a gang by making it all sound glamorous. Money is also an crucial factor. A kid (a 6-10 year old, who is not yet a member) is shown that s/he could make $200 to $400 for small part time gang jobs.

Although these are important factors they are not strong enough to make kids do things that are strongly against their morals. One of the ways that kids morals are bent so that gang violence becomes more acceptable is the influence of television and movies. The average child spends more time at a TV than she/he spends in a classroom. Since nobody can completely turn off their minds, kids must be learning something while watching the TV. Very few hours of television watched by children are educational, so other ideas are being absorbed during this period of time.

Many shows on television today are extremely violent and are often shown this from a gang’s perspective. A normal adult can see that this is showing how foully that gangs are living. However, to a child this portrays a violent gang existance as acceptable. ‘The Ends Justifies the Means’ mentality is also taught through many shows where the “goody guy” captures the “bad guy” through violence and is then being commended. A young child sees this a perfectly acceptable because he knows that the “bad guy” was wrong but has no idea of what acceptable apprehension techniques are.

Gore in television also takes a big part in influencing young minds. Children see gory scenes and are fascinated by these things that they have not seen before. Older viewers see gore and are not concerned with the blood but rather with the pain the victim must feel. A younger mind doesn’t make this connection. Thus a gore fascination is formed, and has been seen in several of my peers. Unfortunately kids raised with this sort of television end up growing up with a stronger propensity to becoming a violent gang member or ‘violent- acceptant’ person. Gangs bring the delinquent norms of society into intimate contact with the individual. “1, (Marshall B Clinard, 1963).

So, as you can see if TV leads a child to believe that violence is the norm this will manifest itself in the actions of the child quite, often in a gang situation. This is especially the case when parents don’t spend a lot of time with their kids at the TV explaining what is right and what is wrong. Quite often newer books and some types of music will enforce this type of thought and ideas.

Once this mentality is installed in youngsters they become increasingly prone to being easily pushed into a gang situation by any problem at home or elsewhere. For instance, in poor families with many children or upper-middle class families where parents are always working, the children will often feel deprived of love. Parents can often feel that putting food on the table is enough love. Children of these families may often go to the gang firstly out of boredom and to belong somewhere. As time goes on, a form of love or kinship develops between the gang members and the child.

It is then that the bond between the kid and the gang is completed because the gang has effectively taken the place of the family. The new anti social structure of cities also effects the ease in which a boy/girl can join a gang. ” The formation of gangs in cities, and most recently in suburbs, is facilitated by the same lack of community among parents. The parents do not know what their children are doing for two reasons: First, much of the parents’ lives is outside the local community, while the children’s lives are lived almost totally within it.

Second, in a fully developed community, the network of relations gives every parent, in a sense, a community of sentries who can keep him informed of his child’s activities. In modern living-places (city or suburban), where such a network is attenuated, he no longer has such sentries. “2, (Merton Nisbet, 1971). In male gangs problems occur as each is the members tries to be the most manly. This often leads to all members participating in “one-up-manship”. Quite often this will then lead to each member trying to commit a bigger and more violent crime or simply more crimes than the others.

With all members participating in this sort of activity it makes for a never ending unorganized violence spree (A sort of Clockwork Orange mentality). In gangs with more intellegent members these feelings end up making each member want to be the star when the groups commit a crime. This makes the gang much more organized and improves the morale of members which in turn makes them more dangerous and very hard for the police to deal with and catch (There is nothing harder to find and deal with than organized teens that are dedicated to the group).

This sort of gang is usually common of middle or upper class people although it can happen in gangs in the projects and other low rent districts too. This “one-up-manship” is often the reason between rival gangs fighting. All gangs feel powerful and they want to be feared. To do this they try to establish themselves as the only gang in a certain neighborhood. After a few gang fights hatred forms and gang murders and drive-by’s begin to take place. When two gangs are at war it makes life very dangerous for citizens in the area.

Less that 40% of drive-by’s kill their intended victim yet over 60% do kill someone. This gang application is one of the many reasons that sexual sterotypes and pressure to conform to the same must be stopped. Lastly one of the great factors in joining a gang is for protection. Although from an objective point of view, we can see joining a gang brings more danger than it saves you from, this is not always the way it is seen by kids. In slums such as the Bronx or the very worst case, Compton, children will no doubt be beaten and robbed if they do not join a gang.

Of course they can probably get the same treatment from rivals when in a gang. The gang also provides some money for these children who quite often need to feed their families. The reason kids think that the gang will keep them safe is from propoganda from the gangs. Gang members will say that no one will get hurt and make a public show of revenge if a member is hurt or killed. People in low rent areas are most often being repressed due to poverty and most importantly, race.

This often results in an attitude that motivates the person to base his/her life on doing what the system that oppresses them doesn’t want. Although this accomplishes little it is a big factor in gang enrollment. So, as you have seen gangs are a product of the environment we have created for ourselves. Some of these factors include: oppression, the media, greed, violence and other gangs. There seems to be no way to end the problem of gangs without totally restructuring the modern economy and value system.

Since the chance of this happening is minimal, we must learn to cope with gangs and try to keep their following to a minimum. Unfortunately there is no real organized force to help fight gangs. Of course the police are supposed to do this but this situation quite often deals with racial issues also and the police forces regularly display their increasing inability to deal fairly with these issues. What we need are more people to form organizations like the “Guardian Angels” a gang-like group that makes life very tough for street gangs that are breaking laws.

Does entertainment influence society’s attitude towards violent behavior? In order to fully answer this question we must first understand what violence is. Violence is the use of one’s powers to inflict mental or physical injury upon another, examples of this would be rape or murder. Violence in entertainment reaches the public by way of television, movies, plays, and novels.

Through the course of this essay it will be proven that violence in entertainment is a major factor in the escalation of violence in society, once this is proven we will take all of the evidence that has been shown throughout this paper and come to a conclusion as to whether or not violence in entertainment is justified and whether or not it should be censored. Television with its far reaching influence spreads across the globe. Its most important role is that of reporting the news and maintaining communication between people around the world.

Television’s most influential, yet most serious aspect is its shows for entertainment. Violent children’s shows like Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and adult shows like NYPD Blue and Homicide almost always fail to show human beings being able to resolve their differences in a non-violent manner, instead they show a reckless attitude that promotes violent action first with reflection on the consequences later. In one episode of NYPD Blue three people were murdered in the span of an hour. Contemporary television creates a seemingly insatiable appetite for amusement of all kinds without regard for social or moral benefits” (Schultze 41).

Findings over the past twenty years by three Surgeon Generals, the Attorney General’s Task Force on Family Violence, the American Medical Association, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical authorities indicate that televised violence is harmful to all of us, but particularly to the mental health of children (Medved 70-71).

In 1989 the results of a five year study by the American Psychological Association indicated that the average child has witnessed 8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence on television by the time he or she has completed sixth grade. In further studies it was determined that by the time that same child graduates from high school he or she will have spent 22,000 hours watching television, twice as many hours as he or she has spent in school (Bruno 124).

In a study by the Centers for Disease Control, published by the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), it was shown that homicide rates had doubled between the introduction of television in the 1950’s and the end of the study in 1994. In that same study other possible causes for the vast increases in violence were studied, “the ‘baby boom’ effect, trends in urbanization, economic trends, trends in alcohol abuse, the role of capital punishment, civil unrest, the availability of guns, and exposure to television”(Lamson 32).

Each of these purported causes was tested in a variety of ways to see whether it could be eliminated as a credible contributor to doubling the crime rate in the United States, and one by each of them was invalidated, except for television. Children average four hours of television per day, and in the inner city that increases to as much as eleven hours a day, with an average of eight to twelve violent incidents per hour. It is also interesting to note that violence occurs some fifty-five times more often on television than it does in the real world (Medved 156).

FBI and census data show the homicide arrest rate for seventeen-year-olds more than doubled between 1985 and 1991, and the rates for fifteen-and sixteen-year-olds increased even faster. Movies also add their fair share to the problem of violence in society. “Researchers have established that copycat events are not an anomaly. Statistically-speaking, they are rare, but predictable, occurences. Television shows, novels, but especially movies-all can trigger copycat violence” (Medved 72).

As recently as November of 1995, New York City officials believed that the burning of a toll-booth clerk was a result of copycat violence, resulting from a similar scene in the movie Money Train. In 1994, Nathan Martinez shot and killed his stepmother and half sister after watching the movie Natural Born Killers at least six times. “Later, Martinez, who had shaved his head and wore granny sun glasses like Natural Born Killer’s main character Mickey Knox, reportedly told a friend, “It’s nothing like the movies”(Purtell 57).

In a 1993 film, The Program, there was a scene showing college football players lying in the center of a highway in an attempt to show their courage and dedication to their sport. This movie was later blamed for inspiring real-life imitators; (one of whom died). In numorous experiments based at pre-schools, researchers have observed children playing before and after seeing violent movies and television shows. “Following the violent program the children’s play is invaribly more aggressive. They are much more likely to hit, punch, kick, and grab to get their way.

In other words, violent entertainment teaches children how to use aggression for personal gain” (Medved 75). It is also hard to believe that movies like Rambo III with one hundred and six killings and Terminator 2 which showed countless killings plus a nuclear holocaust have at one time had their own line of children’s action figures even though both movies are rated R. One must seriously consider the idea that the movie studios are targeting a younger and easily influenced main audience. The ancient Greeks believed that violence should never be shown on stage, because people imitated what they saw.

Because of this they would only show the results of violence in order to deter any violent activity. The Greeks slowly but surely moved away from this idea as did other playwrights, and by the late 1500’s a new writer with a new view on violence was beginning to write plays. His name was William Shakespeare. Many critics were bothered by Shakespeare’s failure to follow the rules of the ancient Greeks, especially the rules concerning violence, but they also objected to Shakespeare’s comic sexual passages, which they considered vulgar.

Shakespeare was a writer during what has historically been called the Elizabethan era. Shakespeare’s plays reflect the shift from optimism to pessimism in Elizabethan society. “Elizabethans were keenly aware of death and the brevity of life” (Info Find), but death and violence fascinated the Elizabethans. “They flocked to the beheadings of traitors whose heads were exhibited on poles and watched as criminals were hanged, and they saw the rotting corpses dangle from the gallows for days” (The Student Handbook 2: 591). Elizabethans, literature and lives were very violent.

In Shakespeare’s play Hamlet all the main characters die through murder or suicide, all of which is shown on stage. Those critics who say excessive violence has only become a common occurence in today’s entertainment, should watch Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus with its’ stage direction, “Enter a messenger with two heads and a hand” (Klavan 98), or they should watch as quarts of stage blood are poured all over the “victims” in that same play. Novels, just like television, movies, and plays can cause violence. Throughout history novels have been the cause of violent behavior.

Those who say people can’t be influenced by books, should really look into the influence that a book called Uncle Tom’s Cabin had ten years prior to the Civil War. In 1851 Uncle Tom’s Cabin, written by Harriet Beecher Stowe was published. The novel told of the hardships and cruelties faced by African-American slaves in the south. The novel popularlized the abolitionist movement and is believed to have been a major cause for the Civil War, which even though a noble cause, resulted in over 500,000 deaths (The Student Handbook 2: 592). In 1980 Mark Chapman, a former mental patient, shot and killed John Lennon.

When asked why he did it, he indicated that he got the idea to kill Lennon from J. D. Salinger’s novel The Catcher in the Rye (590). He felt that he and the main character in the story, Holden Caufield, were very similar because they were both angry social outcasts, who were recovering from a mental breakdown (590). Violence is prominent in children’s novels too. R. L. Stine’s novel The Babysitter III, tells of decapitating a baby and in Christopher Pike’s novel, Monster, there is a graphic description of the effects of a shotgun being fired at a person’s head at close range.

Roderick McGillis, a professor of English at the University of Calgary and author of a book on children’s literature, has written that, “What disturbs me is that we’re developing in our culture, in our cities, a kind of siege mentality. A lot of thes books reinforce this, make it sort of normal to think that the world is a place in which violence can erupt at any moment” (Gray 54). With all of this evidence it is hard to ignore the fact that violence in entertainment can cause violence in society. This paper has now shown that there are copycat kilers who get the idea for their crimes from entertainment.

It has also been shown that the more violent movies and television children watch the more likely thay are to become aggressive and violent. Violence in entertainment and society is not isolated to the present, it was also very prominent in the writings of Shakespeare. With the evidence showing that violence in entertainment causes real life violence, it is very hard to say that violence in entertainment is justifiable. When little children and adults alike, fall victim to entertainment’s violent influence it is not justifiable and it is especially not justifiable when violent entertainment creates real life victims.

Is censorship the answer to the problem of violent entertainment? Should we tell people what they can or can’t read or watch? The simple answer to this question is no, we can’t censor violent entertainment. The First Amendment clearly states that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The instinct to censor is the tragic flaw of utopian minds. “Our first job,” said Plato in his classic attack on the democratic system , “is to oversee the work of the story writers, and to accept any good stories they write, but reject the others” (Klavan 96). If the government ever did censor violent entertainment who knows where they would stop, or even if they would. Perhaps they would try to censor violent speech or try to censor the speech of those who disagreed with the actions of the government.

The simple message is don’t promote censorship, because it could easily get out of hand, and as the old saying goes “the road to hell is paved with good intentions. ” There are then only two ways to get rid of the violent entertainment in our lives: we could shame those who make the violent movies, television shows, books, and plays, into having a social conscience, making them be less prone to creating violent entertainment; or we could simply solve the problem ourselves, with a push of a button, or the turn of a page.