Judge Gets Long-winded In Halo 3 Teen Guilty Verdict
A verdict finally came down today from the Ohio Judge James Burge in the murder trail in which 17-year-old Daniel Petric was accused of murdering his mother and attempting to murder his father in 2007. Petric apparently was upset with his parents after they denied him from playing his Halo 3 game by taking it away. He then stole his dad's handgun and shot both in the head after telling them to close their eyes because he had a surprise for them. The boy's lawyers were pleading that their client was mentally ill as his defense in the case.
The verdict came back yesterday as guilty from the judge, since they defense didn't show enough evidence to prove that Daniel was mentally ill. After announcing the verdict, Judge James Burge then launched into a long statement as to how he feels videogames played a part in the incident, Gamepolitics took the time to transcribe the remarks:
The Court must enter a finding of guilty on the counts set forth in the indictment. That being said, it's my firm belief as a human being - and not as a jurist - that Daniel does suffer from a serious defect of the mind.This Court's opinion is that we don't know enough about these video games. In this particular case, not so much the violence of the game because I believe in the Halo 3, what it amounts to is a contest to see who can shoot the most aliens who attack.
It's my firm belief that after a while the same physiological responses occur that occur in the ingestion of some drugs. And I believe that an addiction to these games can do the same thing. The dopamine surge, the stimulation of the nucleus accumbens - the same as an addiction. Such that when you stop, your brain won't stand for it.
The other dangerous thing about these games, in my opinion, is that when these changes occur, they occur in an environment that is delusional. Because you can shoot these aliens, and they're there again the next day. You have to shoot them again. And I firmly believe that Daniel Petric had no idea, at the time he hatched this plot, that if he killed his parents, they would be dead forever.
I'm glad to see that the judge at least admits at the beginning of his statement that we still don't know enough about violence in videogames and what effects they do actually have. His speculation on gaming being an addiction is probably not too far off base, but as to what degree it is addictive is still very much up in the air and how the addiction affects the average person is also unknown. The second statement is the classic "telling fiction from reality" argument, and so if he really had no idea at the time that "if he killed his parents, they would be dead forever", then maybe that insanity plea is a little more realistic.
Judge Comes Down Hard on Video Games in Halo 3 Murder Trial [GamePolitics]
That's retarded.
I don't believe that a thirteen year-old, even one that is high on first person shooters can believe that if he killed his parents they wouldn't be dead tomorrow. If he did he wouldn't have started with his parents. He would have killed a whole lot of people. Classmates. Toddlers. Anyone he could have wrapped his hands around. And in Halo 3, you don't even kill people, you kill aliens and guys who look like robots. He loaded a gun and shot his parents execution-style because he was mad at them. On the other hand, great parenting dead-slash-maimed parents. When did having guns in the house and letting your kids play shooters become a good combination? One or the other.
This is what happens when kids don't have access to pornography.
The problem I have with these types of stories is that nobody ever seems to mention the ludicrous fact that people/teenagers/children can get hold of guns far too easily in America.
Wow, the judge is a medical doctor and a phycologist - amazing.
No, the problem is not gun control. An minor cannot walk into a gun store and purchase one. If he obtains one, he does so illegally or through the negligence of his parents.
The problem is the parents. If you dont know that your kid is so imbalanced that he could kill then there is a problem with your parenting skills. Get away from the tv, or from the booze or take 10 minutes away from work and find out what your ids are up to.
Addiction, such as a drug, eh? So, would playing video games count then as something I could get a doctor's note for in order skip work and sit at home for a bit? You know, for my addiction?
I think that what the judge said is really dumb. I know lots of kids that play video games and none of them would kill their parents because they took the game away. I also think that the judge shouldn't have tried to defend the kids actions by saying that the fault was the video games' a not the kids'. The kid was 17 years old! I'm pretty sure he knew what he was doing.
I think that what the judge said is really dumb. I know lots of kids that play video games and none of them would kill their parents because they took the game away. I also think that the judge shouldn't have tried to defend the kids actions by saying that the fault was the video games' a not the kids'. The kid was 17 years old! I'm pretty sure he knew what he was doing.