The effect of violent media on children and society

[Banquo's Ghost]

I have never understood why violence is more tolerated within our media culture than sex, and this opinion piece (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2461820/Our-attitude-to-violence-is-beyond-a-joke-as-new-Batman-film-The-Dark-Knight-shows.html) echoes many of my own thoughts and concerns.

I suspect I can guess the reaction of many members here (a gaming site after all) when the old spectre of violent media influencing behaviour is raised, but I do think it bears debate beyond the purely statistical.

Like the reviewer, I found "The Dark Knight" to be an intensely disturbing film - which is its intent - and thoroughly unsuitable for children. To me, violence of the nature portrayed in that film is deserving of censorship to preclude any but adults from viewing. As the article notes, it is but the latest in a long line of extremely violent films each attempting to outdo the last.

The writer notes the following in relation to the USA, but it is largely true of all the prudish Anglo-Saxon countries:


Britain appears to be gulping down entertainment values wholesale from a Hollywood intent upon mining the profit margin from barbarism. America, for all its manifold strengths, is still a country in which the population can be roused to a frenzy of condemnation by the sight of Janet Jackson's escaped nipple on the Super Bowl, but views the sight of a bound man being torched to death as all-round family entertainment.

There is clearly an increase in violence among young people (at least certain subsets) and it is also true that one can link much of this increase to a range of causes unconnected with the media - poverty, social alienation, lack of role models etc. But there has been some disquiet voiced in relation to certain music/singers and their influence on young people. If music, why not film or games? Maybe the explicit approval of viciousness to others promoted from the entertainment industry foments interest and/or activity that contribute - permit? - violence rooted in the other factors.

An individual film may not have an effect on an individual person, but does not constant exposure slowly brutalise our society? Why do we prefer our children to be exposed to the pornography of graphic sadism when a couple making love is cause for shudders across the mainstream?

[Hosakawa Tito]

Here is a link to the US film rating system: http://www.mpaa.org/flmrat_ratings.asp

It seems the Brit rating of 12A is just about identical to the US PG13.

I tend to agree that the exposure to graphic violence from all media sources can't help but desensitize some to such behavior. Another reason why proper and responsible parenting is such a tough job.

I believe we can lay this one at the feet of "freedom of expression", "freedom of choice", and the big one "freedom to profit". Why do they censore graphic sex more than graphic violence?...it's those dang Puritans

[Rhyfelwyr]

I remember once my mum changed the channel during Neighbours because two people were kissing, then later that night she didn't comment on a film when someone posted a severed dogs head through a letterbox.

I can understand though. If I had children, I would think violence is maybe unpleasant, but sex scenes are more 'wrong'.

[KukriKhan]

Ms. McCartney begins her piece by asking herself whether she'd relent to offspring-pleading and take a 10-year old to see The Dark Knight. If she did, she'd not be providing the PG (Parental Guidance) recommended, and she'd have to lie about her 10-year old being 13+. Thus, IMO, her child-rearing license should be suspended or revoked.

That said, I think a constant exposure to simulated violence does have the deleterious effect of lessening sensitivity to other's pain and suffering, AND has the added negative side effect of slowly crippling the imaginations of the viewers; if the viewer has to do little mental work to imagine the horrors of immolation and torture because it is already graphically displayed in front of him, it breeds mental laziness. I agree such explicit portrayals are pornographic, as x-rated media have demonstrably similar effects.

“Erotica is using a feather, pornography is using the whole chicken.” - Isabel Allende

[CrossLOPER]

I can understand though. If I had children, I would think violence is maybe unpleasant, but sex scenes are more 'wrong'.
Which is more acceptable: Rape, or consensual sex between two adults in a healthy relationship?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I didn't read the article, the violence they are talking about is rape?

OK just read it, and its not. And children should not watch either of your two examples, at all. Obviously one is in reality a totally different matter from the other, but they both get the same absolute NO for children.

"Parents and their open-mouthed children found themselves watching a scene in which a bloodied Bond, stripped naked and tied to a chair, is tortured by having his genitals beaten with a length of rope. A friend of mine was somewhat dismayed afterwards to witness his two young boys, aged nine and seven, diligently re-enacting the torture scene with an outsize teddy bear strapped to a chair and a flail constructed from a knotted dressing-gown cord."

Admittedly, that is slightly odd. :whip:

But what would you rather your 12 year old chlid watched, if you had two choices:

A. a standard James Bond sex scene
B. a fight scene from Kill Bill

Choice A might be legal, but if I was a parent I would think I prefer option B.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Ms. McCartney begins her piece by asking herself whether she'd relent to offspring-pleading and take a 10-year old to see The Dark Knight. If she did, she'd not be providing the PG (Parental Guidance) recommended, and she'd have to lie about her 10-year old being 13+. Thus, IMO, her child-rearing license should be suspended or revoked.

She wouldn't have to lie about her ten year old, she'd just have to accompany it to the cinema. It is recommended for thirteen and over, but thirteen and under can view it with parental presence, as I recall.

I was allowed to see Braveheart at maybe eleven or twelve, and I turned out alright. Though I would be more concerned about my children seeing a sex scene than a violence scene, for a few reasons.

[CrossLOPER]

But what would you rather your 12 year old chlid watched, if you had two choices:

A. a standard James Bond sex scene
B. a fight scene from Kill Bill

Choice A might be legal, but if I was a parent I would think I prefer option B.

OK, let's see...

Option A usually consists much kissing, fondling, and about five seconds of half-bare ass. Oh, and grunting.

Option B consists of gross use of amputations, unbelievable blood spatter, and ladies picking each other's eyes out all while letting loose a tirade of foul language. Granted that one of the sex scenes in Goldeneye had a lady appear to want to claw out her partner's eyes during an orgasmic frenzy, but that's not the same thing. At all.

Yeah, I think option A is better. Why you would want your child to watch a happy wanton bloodbath like Kill Bill rather than a rather restrained action movie like James Bond is absolutely beyond me. Please explain.

[Kralizec]

I think it's because most parents figure that their kids are more likely to start experimenting with sex rather than murdering their classmates.

Or maybe not, and it's just a question of priorities.

[Tribesman]

Ms. McCartney begins her piece by asking herself whether she'd relent to offspring-pleading and take a 10-year old to see The Dark Knight. If she did, she'd not be providing the PG (Parental Guidance) recommended, and she'd have to lie about her 10-year old being 13+. Thus, IMO, her child-rearing license should be suspended or revoked.

you got that a bit wrong , if she took her child to the cinema that is allowed , if she sent the child to the cinema without her then the child would have to say they are 13 .

[Rhyfelwyr]

Because children shouldn't even have any idea what sex is, they are not meant to.

But any normal child will know people kill people all the time. Most violent films tend to have a good guy, there's nothing wrong with killing the baddies. Sadistic torture scenes (eg Casino Royale) are a different matter. OK they are trying to get information out of him, but it might be less obvious to children.

[KukriKhan]

you got that a bit wrong , if she took her child to the cinema that is allowed , if she sent the child to the cinema without her then the child would have to say they are 13 .

Yeah, OK. I pushed it a bit, trying to cast a tiny aspersion on that media-industry member's decrying the very media that feeds her. I thought I smelt hypocrisy, so took a cheap shot. My bad.

[BigTex]

A friend of mine was somewhat dismayed afterwards to witness his two young boys, aged nine and seven, diligently re-enacting the torture scene with an outsize teddy bear strapped to a chair and a flail constructed from a knotted dressing-gown cord."

It may seem like a horrible thing to say, but that is the funniest thing I've heard in a few days, wish there where some pictures. :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

I hardly see these films as any worse then the 80's slasher flicks. So the whole apoclyptic writing about how these "new films are destroying the youth's" falls on deaf ears for me. I find that fake machoism may be on the rise, but true violence is down. You have a whole culture now based on the idea of pretending to be hard, and tough (machoism with talk only, might call it feminized machoism..) is what is in. Hip Hop culture/songs encourages far worse things then overly macabre films.

The Dark Knight is a good movie and stays very true to the comics it is based off of. The dark knight comic books have been around for over a decade and they are far more graphic then the movie. Lots of talk and hype over something thats been here for quite awhile, could be called it fear mongering..

[LittleGrizzly]

"Parents and their open-mouthed children found themselves watching a scene in which a bloodied Bond, stripped naked and tied to a chair, is tortured by having his genitals beaten with a length of rope. A friend of mine was somewhat dismayed afterwards to witness his two young boys, aged nine and seven, diligently re-enacting the torture scene with an outsize teddy bear strapped to a chair and a flail constructed from a knotted dressing-gown cord."

Admittedly, that is slightly odd.

I think its just worse than it sounds, when i was about 7 my grandfather made me a little gallows which i used to hang lego men, my nan was not happy and took it but i had a good few years enjoying torturing little lego men (usually the bad guys) and i have never really been violent in my life, so i wouldn't say its all that bad.

I personally think the effect is overstated, and i remember i used to think films age ratings were too high, but 12A for batman is about right, most of the worst violence is hidden and the worst bits they do show you is mainly just special effects.

[Hosakawa Tito]

“Erotica is using a feather, pornography is using the whole chicken.” - Isabel Allende

I like that quote and the idea it portrays. I believe it's more the graphic nature and/or degree of the violence that is most objectionable. The movies and cartoons of my childhood years, 1960's & early 1970's, depicted violence but not in the graphic blood spattering detail that they do today. This Dark Night movie is more adult content than my 10 year old needs. He can watch it in about 4-5 years, maybe.

[Tribesman]

So if we take this incident the writer talks of

America, for all its manifold strengths, is still a country in which the population can be roused to a frenzy of condemnation by the sight of Janet Jackson's escaped nipple on the Super Bowl, but views the sight of a bound man being torched to death as all-round family entertainment.

If that timberlake fella instead of just exposing jacksons nipple had attatched some nippleclamps and pulled them really hard would the puritans still have complianed or would that just be entertainment ?

[Viking]

Because children shouldn't even have any idea what sex is, they are not meant to.

But any normal child will know people kill people all the time. Most violent films tend to have a good guy, there's nothing wrong with killing the baddies. Sadistic torture scenes (eg Casino Royale) are a different matter. OK they are trying to get information out of him, but it might be less obvious to children.

The term 'child' is relative, but if you define child in this context as someone 12-17 y.o. then they are as they are created indeed supposed to have an idea of what it is.

'Bad guy' is also an extremely relative term in reality, while in the movies it's typically not. :idea:



I think it's because most parents figure that their kids are more likely to start experimenting with sex rather than murdering their classmates.

Makes sense.

[Lord Winter]

I think justified romancized violence (derictly shown or inderictly shown), is much more harmful then a darker, sinister more realistic veiw of violence. If violence is romantizid and justified like it is in the more "tamer" versions of spider man, Robin Hood and King Aurther. It in a sense romantizies and justifies it, giving a greater support of violence as proper response.

Also I never saw the Joker as a Sadist to be emulated but more as a symbol for the corrupting power of fear.

[caravel]

Depitction of violence is justified in some cases. For example I'd rather the youth see how bloody and painful war is rather than see the old fashioned bloodless version that we were subject to a few decades ago.

At the same time gratuitious and criminal violence, particularly glorification of such violence, including scenes of torture and rape can be deeply disturbing. It seems to me that TV and "motion picture" in general has taken the "shock factor" thing too far. I see people complaining these days that a particular movie doesn't have enough blood or that another movie isn't violent enough. Sadly we've lost touch with reality. In reality there is always a giving and receiving end to such violence. Some laugh at it from sidelines, yet don't think what it would be like to be on the receiving end.

[woad&fangs]

The Dark Knight was PG13? :freak:

[CrossLOPER]

I think it's because most parents figure that their kids are more likely to start experimenting with sex rather than murdering their classmates.

Or maybe not, and it's just a question of priorities.
OK, I still have not been given an explanation on why a child should know what the effect of a pickaxe to the head is, but not "hugging".

[KarlXII]

“Erotica is using a feather, pornography is using the whole chicken.” - Isabel Allende

You don't have something you want to tell us, do you? :2thumbsup:

[KarlXII]

I think justified romancized violence (derictly shown or inderictly shown), is much more harmful then a darker, sinister more realistic veiw of violence. If violence is romantizid and justified like it is in the more "tamer" versions of spider man, Robin Hood and King Aurther. It in a sense romantizies and justifies it, giving a greater support of violence as proper response.

Also I never saw the Joker as a Sadist to be emulated but more as a symbol for the corrupting power of fear.

Yes, romancized violence often gives the wrong views to children, showing war as exciting and great.

Personally, I saw the Joker as the true symbol of Anarchy and manipulation based off fears.

[Husar]

I just wanted to add that I hate you all who have seen the Dark Knight yet, it only enters cinemas here in four weeks or so. :furious3:

And then my parents also kept me away from violence as a teenager, my dad would not let me watch movies rated 16+ until I was 16 etc., my parents also had some interest in what I played on the computer and so on. Contrary to that I could be quite bloodthirsty in primary school when I read donald duck comics, I think these had a really bad influence on me. :sweatdrop:

[naut]

I always see this as a flawed argument. There's plenty of violent media available through the news, which isn't age rated. Granted it isn't graphic, usually, but it is still available and often depicts more violent acts. Does that make us all bloodthirsty? Also lets not forget that throughout human history there have been worse acts and people have been subject to them, children being no exception. I'll always be a skeptic of this line of thought, because it's such a post-hoc fallacy.

In a hurry so can't formulate my ideas properly.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Ther was an opinion piece in The West Australian on saturday presenting a similar point of view. The Dark Knight is rated M over in Australia, which I'm fairly sure means recommended for 15+ but nothing is actually enforced (MA, means that you have to be over 15, or accompanied by an adult).

Yes the film contains a lot of violence. The piece I read on saturday was more concerned with Heath Ledger's disturbingly realistic performance as the anti-hero, The Joker. Having seen the movie I have to say I agree that Ledger's Joker would be a terrifying prospect. A sadistic, monstrous serial killer, seemingly lacking in any human emotion. The movie itself as can be gleaned from the title, deals with Batman facing his inner demons.

Violence in films such as The Dark Knight, however is more concerning to society than stylised representations of historical battles, or that seen in films of the fantastic genre. And in honesty probably should be. Which would a child be more likely to grow up to do, grab a sword and go on a rampage to emulate Brad Pitt's Achilles, or beat up people who have done 'bad things' as a wannabe vigilante?

There is little tangible evidence that violence in films and games has an impact on people's behaviour in the wider world, however do we really want to expose young children to horrific torture scenes? That is why there is a clssification board. However as we go forward it seems they are weakening their stance on many things. PG13, 12A, M, these ratings are pretty much a joke and a cop-out. Actually restricting movies, based on their content, makes a lot more sense.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There is little tangible evidence that violence in films and games has an impact on people's behaviour in the wider world, however do we really want to expose young children to horrific torture scenes? That is why there is a clssification board. However as we go forward it seems they are weakening their stance on many things. PG13, 12A, M, these ratings are pretty much a joke and a cop-out. Actually restricting movies, based on their content, makes a lot more sense.

Not necessarily in films, but I think when it comes to video games, the stance on maturity ratings and game content should be relaxed, in my country at least. We have one of the most active gaming communities in the world, one of the best markets, and yet I buy all my games in Canada or on the internet because of the almost draconian restrictions on game content.

EDIT: Alright, maybe it's not that bad, but I still disapprove.

There's my rant for the day. Enjoy. ~;)

[pevergreen]

Ther was an opinion piece in The West Australian on saturday presenting a similar point of view. The Dark Knight is rated M over in Australia, which I'm fairly sure means recommended for 15+ but nothing is actually enforced (MA, means that you have to be over 15, or accompanied by an adult).

For reference Australian Rating System:

G - General Exhibition
PG - Parental Guidance Recommended, for children under 12 years.
M - Recommended for Mature Audiance 15 and over
MA - Restricted to those 15 and over
R - Restricted to those 18 and over
X - Not entirely sure, but its on the gov. website, friend next to me thinks that means not allowed to be screened in public.

(http://www.classification.gov.au/special.html?n=250&p=58)

(Video Game ratings are the same until R/X where there is none. MA15+ is the biggest rating for games, otherwise banned {every GTA game})

[LittleGrizzly]

(Video Game ratings are the same until R/X where there is none. MA15+ is the biggest rating for games, otherwise banned {every GTA game})

Thats stupid, why not just have an R rating available and let adults play grand theft auto....

[Andres]

I think its just worse than it sounds, when i was about 7 my grandfather made me a little gallows which i used to hang lego men, my nan was not happy and took it but i had a good few years enjoying torturing little lego men (usually the bad guys) and i have never really been violent in my life, so i wouldn't say its all that bad.



Hey, I did that as well! I had this particular bad guy, man I think I decapacitated, cut of his legs and hung him more then a 1.000 times. Poor fellow :shame:

[Geoffrey S]

PG-13, R, whatever... with internet readily available, are parents incapable of working out for themselves if something is suitable for their children? I don't think so. It is the responsibility of the parents to know what they expose their children to - be it music, video games, movies or internet sites. Shifting that responsibility to a third party is completely unnecessary.

[drone]

Ratings aren't for children, they are for the parents, which explains the disparity between the ratings violence and sex get in movies. A child is not going to ask, "Why did that man put that other man's head in a vice?", it's generally obvious that it hurts and the kid can work things out for himself. And even if he did ask it's a pretty easy question to answer. But subjecting a parent to the uncomfortable questions that would come up after a big-screen sex scene? We couldn't have that now, could we? ~;)

[LittleGrizzly]

Im not sure about the other way around but i remember that any type of violence is preferable to sex if im watching tv with my parents.

[ajaxfetish]

Because children shouldn't even have any idea what sex is, they are not meant to.
I honestly think this sentiment is the most dangerous I've seen in this thread. The desire to protect children is good, but can be taken much too far. Whether a child knows what sex is, it still exists, and sooner or later they'll be faced with it. Would you rather they learn about it at home and in a controlled manner, or from someone in someplace you don't even know about? Children don't need a detailed or graphic picture of sex, and should probably learn about it gradually, but they definitely should have an idea what sex is.

edit: I remember my Grandma telling a story about a girl she knew whose mother warned her not to let any boys kiss her, because that's how you get pregnant. She was later very confused when she found herself knocked up as she'd been extremely scrupulous not to let herself be kissed. Misinformation for the purpose of protection can backfire. I think honesty to be a much safer policy.

On the larger issue, I tend to take a view similar to Rhythmic's

I always see this as a flawed argument. There's plenty of violent media available through the news, which isn't age rated. Granted it isn't graphic, usually, but it is still available and often depicts more violent acts. Does that make us all bloodthirsty? Also lets not forget that throughout human history there have been worse acts and people have been subject to them, children being no exception. I'll always be a skeptic of this line of thought, because it's such a post-hoc fallacy.
I can't really connect with the whole idea of our society getting 'desensitized' to violence. What society has ever been further removed from it? We act as though violence is abnormal, when for most of our history, and for most of the world beyond our neat and manicured suburbs it's a daily fact of life. People in Iraq and Uganda are desensitized to violence. People in some of our inner cities are desensitized to violence. People in revolutionary France, or Thirty Years War Germany, or the Rome of the Colisseum, were desensitized to violence. We are about as sensitized to violence as I can imagine a society being, and I'm not convinced that's healthy.

I think the presence of violence in our media is less important than its character. As the Dark Knight was the showcase that started the discussion, I'd have to say that its brand of violence, disturbing as it is, doesn't greatly concern me, because it portrays violence in a manner that is sickening. Many violent movies are much easier to swallow precisely because they glamourize violence: the bad guys take the brunt of it, none of the important people really suffer, just villains or extras, and violence easily solves the story's problems. Most of the times violence in movies doesn't make us question violence. It's movies like Dark Knight, where the violence isn't fun to watch, that treat it most honestly, and make it less appealing.

Instead of worrying whether violence in media is ruining our society, and considering granting authority to censors instead of the principle of freedom of expression, let's worry about whether we are responding appropriately to the violence we see.

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well my 10 year old brother wants me to take him to see this Batman film tomorrow, and I will if I can be bothered, not sure since I tend to vegetate on my mid-week day off.

Children learn what they need to about sex in school. The reality is younger teenagers tend to get pregnant half the time because they are nowhere near sober enough to tell what they are doing and won't remember what either their parents or their classes taught them.

[Meneldil]

Because children shouldn't even have any idea what sex is, they are not meant to.


What's that wonderful fairy world you live in ?

I know I was obsessed with girls - and so were all my friends - when I was 6 or 7. Granted, I didn't really know how things "worked", but I probably wouldn't have minded knowing it.
Where do you think the whole "playing the doctor" thingy comes from ?

That whole 'children do not and should not know about sex' attitude is pure hypocrisy, as Rousseau shown us a while ago.

[LittleGrizzly]

I would say from at least 12 onwards i pretty much knew what sex was and not long after knew people my own age who had had sex

[Viking]

I would say from at least 12 onwards i pretty much knew what sex was and not long after knew people my own age who had had sex

IIRC I had my first Sex Ed in 5th grade; I would've been 9/10 y.o. at the time.

[CrossLOPER]

Finally, someone addresses Caledonian's odd statement. Schools are not going to teach your children about sex in the sense that there is going to be a chunk of parents who don't want thier children to learn about sex during the health course. They'll claim that they will teach their children when they see fit. Most likely, this will be never or very late.

[Kralizec]

What's that wonderful fairy world you live in ?

I know I was obsessed with girls - and so were all my friends - when I was 6 or 7. Granted, I didn't really know how things "worked", but I probably wouldn't have minded knowing it.
Where do you think the whole "playing the doctor" thingy comes from ?

That whole 'children do not and should not know about sex' attitude is pure hypocrisy, as Rousseau shown us a while ago.

I agree that kids should have some idea of what sex is from early on, but not because Rousseau's saying it. Have you ever heard of that little incident with Voltaire?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I just saw this film today and I do not see what all the fuss is about. The article really exagerated things. For a start, the robbers may shoot each other at the start, but I don't think I noticed one drop of blood.

And when the bomb inside the prisoner went off, you didn't exactly see a close up.

In short, there was no gore at all that I could see. Although the burnt face was a bit creepy.

Also there were no sex scenes in the film, why are we even talking about that?

[LittleGrizzly]

That was my point, the worst of the gore basically happens off screen, you see people die but im pretty sure most 12 year olds are equipped for movie deaths, im pretty sure the original mummy was a 12 and the death scenes of the priests (put in coffin with those bug things added) was more disturbing in my opinion than anything in batman, about the worst scene of the film was the burn scene, i would say that is suitable for a 12 year old.

In terms of the ratings unless there is really excessive amounts of sex (almost a porn movie or an actual porn movie) i don't see a need for a rating above the 15 one, by the time i was 15 i wasn't so sheltered and started watching plenty of 18 rated movies, im sure almost all of you did or would have done the same as well, so what makes the next generation too precious to see such things ??

[Viking]

Also there were no sex scenes in the film, why are we even talking about that?

Read the OP.

[Rhyfelwyr]

lol, sort of lost sight of what we were actually talking about.

On the issue of changing Batman's age rating, didn't this already happen with I-Robot? IIRC it was a 12 (or 12A?) at cinemas but was changed to a 15 when it came out on DVD.

I think this would be unecessary for Batman. The most horiffic thing was the burnt face, which wasn't really violent in itself.

[Adrian II]

I can't really connect with the whole idea of our society getting 'desensitized' to violence. What society has ever been further removed from it?Excellent point. I think this is the whole issue in a nutshell. I don't agree with Banquo's Ghost that 'there is clearly an increase in violence among young people' and that the entertainment industry somehow foments this. On the contrary, it is the dearth of the actual experience of violence that sets off the suburban imagination and demands more and more fulfillment by proxy, even fulfillment in the shape of real wars in far-away countries of which the images and stories reach us in mediated form, tailor-made for public consumption like the now infamous (because staged) tearing down of Saddam's statue in Baghdad.
We are about as sensitized to violence as I can imagine a society being, and I'm not convinced that's healthy.Another good point. We absorb violence merely in controlled doses, be it in our tv series or in our dojo's, on sports fields or in pubs, in video games or in newsreels. This leaves us frightened and wide open to manipulation. We have already succumbed to the notion that there is such a thing as 'controlled' or 'surgical' warfare, which is apparently fine as long as it hits others in far-away countries and not ourselves. Yet when massive violence hits us and we are confronted with its uncontrollable, open-ended nature (another 9/11 could happen every day) we panic in ways never seen before in the history of mankind and accept all sorts of restrictions on our liberties. That worries me far more than kids being confronted with gruesome scenes.

As regards the latter issue, I recently found food for thought in two books by an Austrian supersleuth, Thomas Müller. He has a great reputation for fact-based (as opposed to instinct-based) crime scene analysis and for his insights in the psychological aspects of crime. His conclusion from hundreds of case studies and interviews with perpetrators is that truly violent crime arises from a child's frustration in early youth, coupled with the inability to control the source of frustration, discuss it with others and get help from older people. This failure to act or communicate leads the child to develop violent fantasies, to take refuge in revenge fantasies. In later years these are coupled with hormonal development, charging the violent fantasies with precisely that sexual energy which in normal humans is directed toward regular sexual activity. Killing, rape and torture become libidinal goals, occupying the place of normal sexual gratification. The result can be found in endless rows of files in police departments across the world.

Müller thinks that depictions of violence in the media may contribute to the developemtn of such fantasies, but only in the sense that they give potential criminals ideas (copy-cat behaviour is apparently rampant among serial killers and rapists) which they would have gotten elsewhere anyway. They always did, long before splatter movies, violent comics or video games hit the shelves.