Does the Media Fuel Mass Murders and Other Crimes?

[Vandy Vol]

It all goes back to people being desensitized to another's life or consequences of actions. I believe mental issues can be formed over time by dysfunctional behavoir.

THS - yes. Any generation before the current got more. You can stand in any generation the last 50-60 years and make that statement. If you deny we are more in a nanny state mentality now than ever, you are delusional. Did you not agree with the commencement speech from the English teacher in Ohio? he was dead on. And everything he said is true. All goes back to the general concept of the value of things and consequences of actions. That shit is getting worse every ten years and has been since around the mid 60's.

Fewer people were murdered in the United States in 2010 than any other year from 1969 to 2009; it was considered to be one of the safest years over a 40 year period.  Violent crime in general nearly quadrupled between 1960 and 1991, but has been on a downward trend since then.  This is surprising given the fact that recent years have seen a recession, which tends to increase crime rates.

Sure, maybe this is just an odd "hiccup" in an otherwise longstanding trend in criminal growth over the years, but I find it hard to state that this is definitively a generational desensitization problem when overall crime rates have stagnated and even decreased over the past 20 years.

It's also hard for me to agree that there is a generational issue when the topic at hand is a relatively isolated event involving someone who is not representative of a generation, or even representative of crime in general.  Again, I can't find specific statistics on massacres of this nature, but this is not the first time that a guy walked into a place and killed innocent citizens for no apparent reason.

Does it happen more now than it used to?  Again, without statistics specifically on these types of massacres, I don't know that it does or doesn't happen more often now, but these type of people still represent the fringe.  This isn't a trending fad amongst most people under 30 in our present-day society; it's always occurred due to nut cases that have always been present.

[GH2001]

Fewer people were murdered in the United States in 2010 than any other year from 1969 to 2009; it was considered to be one of the safest years over a 40 year period.  Violent crime in general nearly quadrupled between 1960 and 1991, but has been on a downward trend since then.  This is surprising given the fact that recent years have seen a recession, which tends to increase crime rates.

Sure, maybe this is just an odd "hiccup" in an otherwise longstanding trend in criminal growth over the years, but I find it hard to state that this is definitively a generational desensitization problem when overall crime rates have stagnated and even decreased over the past 20 years.

It's also hard for me to agree that there is a generational issue when the topic at hand is a relatively isolated event involving someone who is not representative of a generation, or even representative of crime in general.  Again, I can't find specific statistics on massacres of this nature, but this is not the first time that a guy walked into a place and killed innocent citizens for no apparent reason.

Does it happen more now than it used to?  Again, without statistics specifically on these types of massacres, I don't know that it does or doesn't happen more often now, but these type of people still represent the fringe.  This isn't a trending fad amongst most people under 30 in our present-day society; it's always occurred due to nut cases that have always been present.

A lot of the things I am talking about can't be seen in stats. Just general attitudes of people. Lack of respect. Nothing I can really prove other than what I know I am seeing in general. The fight at the little league game 2 weeks ago is a perfect example. When a bunch of 40 yr old adults act like that over kids it tells me two things: 1. Something went wrong in their upbringing (that behavior doesnt pop up overnight)  2. The kids there will witness this and end up acting much the same way when they get older because in their mind it was ok.

[Vandy Vol]

A lot of the things I am talking about can't be seen in stats. Just general attitudes of people. Lack of respect. Nothing I can really prove other than what I know I am seeing in general.

I understand that you had a separate sub-topic regarding general attitudes and not necessarily crime, but you also said that crimes like this were the norm now.  If that were the case, then we should see a corresponding change in the crime stats; there isn't one.

Additionally, a lot of my issue is with pointing at this particular massacre and saying that it's the "norm," or even simply "more normal," for younger generations than it was for older generations.  So Andrew Kehoe was just a crazy man in an otherwise normal society, but James Holmes is representative of widespread generational issues?  Both are in the fringe, and neither can be considered representative of their peers' generation in my opinion.

[Tarheel]

I understand that you had a separate sub-topic regarding general attitudes and not necessarily crime, but you also said that crimes like this were the norm now.  If that were the case, then we should see a corresponding change in the crime stats; there isn't one.

Additionally, a lot of my issue is with pointing at this particular massacre and saying that it's the "norm," or even simply "more normal," for younger generations than it was for older generations.  So Andrew Kehoe was just a crazy man in an otherwise normal society, but James Holmes is representative of widespread generational issues?  Both are in the fringe, and neither can be considered representative of their peers' generation in my opinion.

I think you may be on to something Vandy; what is different with the situations like this today is the wide-spectrum broadcasts across satellite and cable tv, radio, Twitter, FB, YooToob, IM, and smart-phone networks of incidents like this within seconds of it happening...instant, world-wide notoriety (or "Fame" in the perps mind).  So, I would say that the media is perhaps an enabler of the notoriety.  If only that same media could be harnessed to broadcast the consequences of the actions of the perp (a good, ole-fashioned hanging perhaps?).

[Vandy Vol]

I think you may be on to something Vandy; what is different with the situations like this today is the wide-spectrum broadcasts across satellite and cable tv, radio, Twitter, FB, YooToob, IM, and smart-phone networks of incidents like this within seconds of it happening...instant, world-wide notoriety (or "Fame" in the perps mind).  So, I would say that the media is perhaps an enabler of the notoriety.  If only that same media could be harnessed to broadcast the consequences of the actions of the perp (a good, ole-fashioned hanging perhaps?).

The media annoys me in many manners, but I wouldn't so much say that the notoriety aspect of it is at fault.  Whether the media indirectly glorifies the suspect is not of my concern, so long as the legal system does its job and appropriate punishment is effected.  Even if some of those who commit these crimes are doing it for the media's attention and the resulting "fame," so to speak, the personal decision to commit the act for whatever reason is what should be focused upon.

Technology probably plays another part in it, at least to some degree.  The intarwebz allows us to find information on things we wouldn't normally know, like bomb-making.  Or info on guns, including to illegal modifications or instructions on how to make them.

Granted, if someone is deranged enough to kill people, they could find a way to do it without our current level of technology, but it makes it easier.  That could result in an increase in crimes, so long as there are people who would be deterred from doing it if executing the crime weren't as easy.

Not saying that information should be limited or that the system of tubes is to blame; just pointing out how it may have resulted in somewhat of an increase.

[Tarheel]

The media annoys me in many manners, but I wouldn't so much say that the notoriety aspect of it is at fault.  Whether the media indirectly glorifies the suspect is not of my concern, so long as the legal system does its job and appropriate punishment is effected.  Even if some of those who commit these crimes are doing it for the media's attention and the resulting "fame," so to speak, the personal decision to commit the act for whatever reason is what should be focused upon.

Technology probably plays another part in it, at least to some degree.  The intarwebz allows us to find information on things we wouldn't normally know, like bomb-making.  Or info on guns, including to illegal modifications or instructions on how to make them.

Granted, if someone is deranged enough to kill people, they could find a way to do it without our current level of technology, but it makes it easier.  That could result in an increase in crimes, so long as there are people who would be deterred from doing it if executing the crime weren't as easy.

Not saying that information should be limited or that the system of tubes is to blame; just pointing out how it may have resulted in somewhat of an increase.

I don't entirely agree (nor disagree for that matter) with this only to say that I think technology and the ease of communicating play a greater degree these days in these acts of violence.  Technology in the sense as you say that information is very readily available and communication in the sense that the act of violence makes the perp famous (or, better, infamous) almost immediately. 

I'm not implying that the means and methods are to blame at all.  The blame lies with the perp.  As to the media they do what they've always done...there's just more of them and the "story" that they tell is disseminated faster.

[GH2001]

I understand that you had a separate sub-topic regarding general attitudes and not necessarily crime, but you also said that crimes like this were the norm now.  If that were the case, then we should see a corresponding change in the crime stats; there isn't one.

Additionally, a lot of my issue is with pointing at this particular massacre and saying that it's the "norm," or even simply "more normal," for younger generations than it was for older generations.  So Andrew Kehoe was just a crazy man in an otherwise normal society, but James Holmes is representative of widespread generational issues?  Both are in the fringe, and neither can be considered representative of their peers' generation in my opinion.

I think random nutty acts like this happen more. Where people just snap for no apparent reason other than being mentally unstable. I think you are also right though. I think it's happening more and I think the media amplifies it so the increase seems larger than it really is. It's both. As I said, they sensationalize EVERYTHING.

[Snaggletiger]

No doubt this guy is unstable in ways I don't think any of us will ever understand.  At the same time, he didn't snap.  Snapping is having that blow up with your boss or spouse, grabbing that gun and saying, "I'll teach that MF to mess with me..."  Holmes plotted this.  Stockpiled his weapons and ammo.  Booby-trapped his apartment.  Dressed up in black cape, gas mask and bullet-proof vest...and even timed the actual shooting.  This was his 10 minutes of fame.  This was something he knew full well would land his mug on every TV screen and at the forefront of every media outlet.  And like so many others before him, he sacrificed innocent people to do it.  So many other ways you can become infamous. 

When I watched the video of him sitting in the courtroom, part of me looked at his expressions and thought, "Wow, this dude is off on some other planet".  The other part of me saw a guy sitting there thinking what the hell have I done? 

[Tarheel]

No doubt this guy is unstable in ways I don't think any of us will ever understand.  At the same time, he didn't snap.  Snapping is having that blow up with your boss or spouse, grabbing that gun and saying, "I'll teach that MF to mess with me..."  Holmes plotted this.  Stockpiled his weapons and ammo.  Booby-trapped his apartment.  Dressed up in black cape, gas mask and bullet-proof vest...and even timed the actual shooting.  This was his 10 minutes of fame.  This was something he knew full well would land his mug on every TV screen and at the forefront of every media outlet.  And like so many others before him, he sacrificed innocent people to do it.  So many other ways you can become infamous. 

When I watched the video of him sitting in the courtroom, part of me looked at his expressions and thought, "Wow, this dude is off on some other planet".  The other part of me saw a guy sitting there thinking what the hell have I done?

And thinking was it worth it for the moment of fame.

...or not thinking anything; he looked drugged to me.

[Vandy Vol]

I think random nutty acts like this happen more. Where people just snap for no apparent reason other than being mentally unstable. I think you are also right though. I think it's happening more and I think the media amplifies it so the increase seems larger than it really is. It's both. As I said, they sensationalize EVERYTHING.

Maybe, maybe not.  Like I said, I don't really know because I can't find statistics on it.  School shootings by young kids have been happening since 1853 in America, but Columbine caught people's attention as one of the first major shootings.  After that, the media gave attention to every single one that happened.  Meanwhile, no one has a clue about the shooting that happened at my school in 1995.

My mom had told me awhile back that, when she was a kid, there was always a random teacher or two that would smack high school girls' asses in the hallway.  Probably more than that occurred, but we didn't start hearing about all of these sexual assaults on minors in schools until the media grew into the giant that it is now and jumped on those incidents to broadcast them nationwide.

Do events like the ones mentioned above, in addition to random nutjobs committing massacres, happen more often now than they used to?  Again, without statistics, I can't say that they do or don't, but a lot of our perception as to whether they occur more often is likely skewed at least to some degree by the modern media and its technological omnipresence.

But, even if such incidents do occur more often, is that necessarily representative of a generational issue?  I don't think so, at least not in regard to James Holmes' actions.  I just don't think that a few more ass beatings would have changed the course of events.  From all accounts, the guy was normal as a child, has never had any run-ins with the law, and was pretty accomplished academically.  Are we suggesting that we beat well-behaved kids more often because it will help prevent psychotic breaks in the future?

I'm all for punishing children when they've done wrong in order to teach them how to do right, but I don't think that's what we have in the case of James Holmes, which is why I think that such events are not representative of a generational issue.

People getting into fights at softball games?  Yeah, that speaks a lot to how a person was raised, and is probably a reoccurring event in their lives that goes to show how they've poorly developed over the years as a person.  But for a previously normal guy to go apeshit on a theater full of defenseless people?  That's mental.

[GH2001]

Maybe, maybe not.  Like I said, I don't really know because I can't find statistics on it.  School shootings by young kids have been happening since 1853 in America, but Columbine caught people's attention as one of the first major shootings.  After that, the media gave attention to every single one that happened.  Meanwhile, no one has a clue about the shooting that happened at my school in 1995.

My mom had told me awhile back that, when she was a kid, there was always a random teacher or two that would smack high school girls' asses in the hallway.  Probably more than that occurred, but we didn't start hearing about all of these sexual assaults on minors in schools until the media grew into the giant that it is now and jumped on those incidents to broadcast them nationwide.

Do events like the ones mentioned above, in addition to random nutjobs committing massacres, happen more often now than they used to?  Again, without statistics, I can't say that they do or don't, but a lot of our perception as to whether they occur more often is likely skewed at least to some degree by the modern media and its technological omnipresence.

But, even if such incidents do occur more often, is that necessarily representative of a generational issue?  I don't think so, at least not in regard to James Holmes' actions.  I just don't think that a few more ass beatings would have changed the course of events.  From all accounts, the guy was normal as a child, has never had any run-ins with the law, and was pretty accomplished academically.  Are we suggesting that we beat well-behaved kids more often because it will help prevent psychotic breaks in the future?

I'm all for punishing children when they've done wrong in order to teach them how to do right, but I don't think that's what we have in the case of James Holmes, which is why I think that such events are not representative of a generational issue.

People getting into fights at softball games?  Yeah, that speaks a lot to how a person was raised, and is probably a reoccurring event in their lives that goes to show how they've poorly developed over the years as a person.  But for a previously normal guy to go apeshit on a theater full of defenseless people?  That's mental.

Can't believe that no one saw any kind of warning sign or red flag from this nutjob before this happened. Maybe he is bipolar. Maybe people ignored them. Who knows. Just weird how it appears the guy went from 0 to mental in 60 seconds.

[AUTiger1]

You can beat a crazy person to near death and it doesn't make them any less crazy.  Crazy people are crazy. One day a wire gets crossed and they cause immediate harm or they methodically plan something out.  I wouldn't even limit that to crazy people though.  Everyone has a breaking point to where they snap and go off the deep end if pushed hard enough and long enough.   Not taking up for the kid, by all means string him up.  I think sometimes we get too caught up in trying to make sense of why people do the things they do when there is and will never be a clear cut answer to why.