Critics zap video games: senators urge government action to curb video-game violenceCurrent Events, a Weekly Reader publication, January 3, 1994

CHICAGO, Ill.--Hooded zombies attack young women using drills to drain their victims' blood ... Two fighters kick and punch each other until the winner pulls the loser's head off with the spinal cord still attached...

Believe it or not, you can watch these horror scenes every day in thousands of U.S. homes. They are part of two widely popular video games--Night Trap and Mortal Kombat.

Both games were featured last month in U.S. Senate hearings on video games. The hearings, headed by Senators Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Herbert Kohl (D-Wis.), looked at two aspects of video games: violence in the games and how companies advertise the games to children. In both cases, the senators found much to criticize.

Too Much Violence Senators Lieberman and Kohl heard from a number of witnesses who testified that many

popular video games are far too violent for children. The violence of Mortal Kombat and Night Trap, the senators were told, teaches kids to be insensitive to human suffering.

Violent video games, said California attorney general Dan Lungren, not only teach kids "to demean and destroy" but also "have a desensitizing impact on young, impressionable minds."

After hearing testimony and seeing demonstrations of the most violent video games, Senator Lieberman declared: "These games are no mark of a civilized society."

Lieberman and Kohl told video game companies to voluntarily cut back on violence in video games. If you don't, Lieberman told the companies, the government will step in and do it for you.

Both major video-game companies, Sega and Nintendo, came under criticism. But the senators had some good words for Nintendo, which limits the amount of violence it allows in video games.

Sega officials defended Night Trap and Mortal Kombat as games intended for older teens and adults, not children. Sega also announced that it had established a rating system for video games similar to movie ratings: PG for children under 13; MA-13 for players 13 and over; and MA-17 for players aged 17 and over.

Misleading Commercial Senator Lieberman also criticized Sega in particular for one of its TV commercials. He

said that the commercial promoted violence and targeted kids under 13. The TV commercial shows a boy gaining the respect of his friends after winning Mortal Kombat. At the end of the commercial, the boy angrily knocks over a tray of cookies given to him by friends now frightened by the boy's fighting ability. The boy roars, "I said I wanted chocolate chip!"

Bill White, vice president of Sega of America, said that Sega had aired the commercial before it established a rating system, and that the commercial was taken off the air.

Realistic Violence Video-game players have been zapping aliens and wiping out bad guys for more than 20

years. So why have critics only now mounted a serious attack on video-game violence? There are two reasons, say critics. The first reason is that today more violence seems to

sell more products. and Nintendo, for make versions of Mortal Kombat, but Sega's much more

violent version widely outsells Nintendo's tamer version. Sega's Mortal Kombat was, in fact, the best-selling video game in 1993-selling more than 4 million copies.

The other reason critics are upset is that video-game violence is becoming more realistic. In early video games, such as Pac-Man and Space Invaders, players wiped out crude cartoon images. But today's video games feature real-looking people. In Night Trap, the characters are played by real actors. In Mortal Kombat, the fighters are realistic animated drawings. Instead of just wiping out a cartoon image, today's video gamers try to kill realistic-looking characters--and that say critics, tends to teach children that human life is cheap.

Video-Game Defenders Of course, not everyone thinks that video-game violence is harmful. Many people argue

that the concern over video-game violence, like the concern over TV violence (CE 4) is much overblown. These people point to the fact that no studies firmly prove that people who play violent video games tend to become more violent in real life.

Some players look upon video-game critics as (in the words of one player) "know-nothing, interfering boobies."

"They're spoilsports," says Tom Jennings, a video-game player. "There are always some people who will say that something new and exciting is wrong and dangerous--no matter what it is."

Other players agree that some games should not be used by children. They say that most video games are harmless fun and not as violent as Mortal Kombat.

"There are some games you want kids to stay away from," says LeeAnne McDermott, editor of a video game magazine. "But there are a lot more games you can feel good about kids playing."

None of this, however, persuades critics such as Senator Lieberman. He has asked the Federal Trade Commission FTC) to investigate how video-game companies try to see their products to kids. And he and Senator Kohl plan to hold a second series of hearings on video-game violence next month. Source Citation"Critics zap video games: senators urge government action to curb video-game violence."

Current Events, a Weekly Reader publication 3 Jan. 1994: 1+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Dec. 2015.

Internal Citation(“Critics”)

Firefight: should teens play violent video games?Current Events, a Weekly Reader publication, September 5, 2011

Warning! Your favorite video games may be hazardous to your health. Call of Duty, Halo, and other top titles arm players with weapons and send them in search of enemies. Often the more people players gun down, the more points they earn.

The violent games are popular with teens and adults alike, but they don't score big with everyone. Some researchers and lawmakers say the gory games make teens aggressive and

violent. They argue that young people shouldn't be allowed to play them without parental consent.

Other researchers disagree, however. They say violent video games are just that--games--and that playing them is no more harmful than watching graphic movies or TV shows. Even the U.S. Supreme Court justices are sticking up for the games. The nation's top judges recently overturned a California law that barred stores from selling violent video games to minors.

What do you think? Are the intense games harmless fun or hazardous to your health?

GAME STOP Violent video games can be just as dangerous as the assault rifles used to gun down the

enemy in Medal of Honor, some researchers say. Psychologists Douglas A. Gentile and Craig A. Anderson have been studying the effects of the games for more than 30 years. The Iowa State University professors recently analyzed more than 150 studies of video games and violence. "[We] found consistent evidence that violent games increase desensitization [and] aggressive thoughts, feelings, physiology, and behaviors and decrease helpful behaviors," they say.

Plus, the more teens play, the more the games' savage scenarios sink in, believes Melissa Henson of the Parents Television Council. That group lobbied in support of the California law. When teens play a game repeatedly, the scenarios in it can become a little too real, she says. "Prolonged exposure to violent images, such as violent video games, can result in more aggressive behavior," Henson told Current Events. "[The repetition from playing often] reinforces certain ways of thinking, certain patterns of behavior."

Even some teens think the games are no good. Raven Laddish, 15, of California, avoids titles such as Grand Theft Auto, in which players steal cars and shoot people. "Those types of games don't really appeal to me," she told Wired.com. "I just don't feel that it's a good message to send to teens."

PLAY ON The assault on violent video games needs to stop, says psychologist Christopher

Ferguson. "Although there are some studies that find links between violent games and mild forms of aggression, there are also studies which find no evidence for any links at all," he told CE. The Texas A&M International University assistant professor is conducting his own long-term study on video games' effects on youth violence and bullying. "I've found ... no evidence of harmful video game or television violence effects," he says.

Besides, the games' combative content isn't anything most teens haven't seen before, others argue. In the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out that even fairy tales are violent. In the original version of "Hansel and Gretel," for example, the children kill the witch by baking her in an oven. "Certainly the books we give children to read--or read to them when they are younger--contain no shortage of gore," Scalia wrote in the Court's decision.

When it comes down to it, teens are smart enough to know the difference between real life and fantasy, says Evan Jones, 16. "[I get] an adrenaline rush during the game, and the need to win, but afterwards it's just fine," the California teen told reporters. "I see violent video games as an outlet to aggression and stress."

Source Citation"Firefight: should teens play violent video games?" Current Events, a Weekly Reader publication

5 Sept. 2011: 7. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Dec. 2015.

Internal Citation(“Firefight”)

The games kids play: are mature video games too violent for teens? (News Debate)Current Events, a Weekly Reader publication, February 7, 2003

PRESS START and you become Tommy Vercetti, an ex-convict with nothing to lose. You race down the streets of Vice City, scoring points by stealing cars, robbing banks, dealing drugs, and killing women.

The deadly gun battles and wild car chases are all part of the action of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, one of the hottest video games around. But is the gory game harmless fun?

Some people aren't so sure. Vice City and a few other popular video games have mature ratings, meaning they might

contain violent content, strong language, and nudity. M-rated games are recommended for people 17 and up.

Even though M-rated games are meant for adults, their popularity often extends all the way down to elementary schools. And as kids and teens clamor to play the games, the debate is heating up over whether those kids are old enough to walk the violent streets of Vice City.

Real Life Vice? Researchers say playing M-rated games could spark violent behavior. They say studies

have shown that people who play violent video games are more aggressive. "It increases the likelihood youngsters are going to react to conflict with aggression instead of cooperation," Iowa State University professor Craig Anderson told the Star Tribune.

Experts point to Eric Harris as an example. Harris was one of two teens who opened fire in Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, in 1999, killing 13 people before shooting himself. Harris had a modified version of Doom, an M-rated video game, on his Web site. His version resembled the Columbine shootings--two shooters, unlimited ammunition, and victims who couldn't shoot back.

Some people say games like Vice City should be taken off the shelves because of the way they portray women. "I'm really offended that anybody would sell a [game] that has this kind of violence in it, that kicking a woman to death is a game, is fun," father Howard Winkler told The Olympian.

Just Fantasy Many parents and teens argue that no normal kid would be transformed by a video game's

violence. They say teens are smart enough to tell the difference between reality and fantasy. "The guns, the weapons, blowing stuff up--it's just got something you can't do in real

life," said 15-year-old Bryce Conley of Springfield, Missouri. "You might go shoot the cops in the game, but I'm not going to go out and shoot a cop in real life," he told newspapers.

The Interactive Digital Software association says there is no conclusive link between video games and violent behavior. They point out that as video games increase in popularity, youth violence in the United States declines.

What do you think? Should teens be allowed to play mature video games? Source Citation"The games kids play: are mature video games too violent for teens? (News Debate)." Current

Events, a Weekly Reader publication 7 Feb. 2003: 3. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Dec. 2015.

Internal Citation(“The games”)

Gaming the console: are video games bad for you? Read up on the research, and then decide

Current Health Teens, a Weekly Reader publication, March 2012

Try this experiment. Set up your PlayStation or Xbox. Before you start playing, check your pulse. Play for about a half hour. Then stop and take your pulse again.

It's probably faster than it was before, says John P. Murray. He's a psychology professor and visiting scholar at the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston. Murray has studied the effects of media on young people for more than 40 years. "Playing a fast-paced game, especially one with shooting, is like a jolt of adrenaline to your System," he says. "And if you can feel that change your pulse, imagine what else is going on in your body and brain that you can't see."

Scientists are debating whether playing video games can harm people. Nearly all experts in the field see a relationship between gaming and increased aggression, sloppy schoolwork, and even bad dreams. At the same time, some experts believe that video games can be put to good use in the classroom and at home. Here's what you need to know before you get your game on.

Brain Science Violent games and movies activate areas of the brain associated with aggression,

particularly the amygdalae and the limbic system. Brain scans also indicate that people may store the violence they've seen onscreen in the brain's posterior cingulate, a part of the brain that controls memories and emotions. (That's why people who have been victims of crimes or soldiers who have fought in battles often relive terrible events as part of what doctors call post-traumatic stress disorder.)

So why don't you feel aggressive after playing a violent game? The effects aren't huge or immediately noticeable by a game player, but they tend to increase over time, says professor Craig A. Anderson, director of the Center for the Study of Violence at Iowa State University. "If you smoke a cigarette, you don't feel cancer beginning to form," he points out.

Virtual Violence Versus Real Behavior

Still, many scientists argue that what someone does in a virtual, or make-believe, world doesn't carry over to the real world unless that person has emotional problems to begin with. Patrick Markey, associate professor of psychology at Villanova University, says that people who aren't very "agreeable" (say, the kind of friend who will never give you a ride home because it's out of his or her way) seem more affected by violent video games. "Already high levels of aggression increase in people with personality problems," he adds.

Anderson agrees. "Violent games aren't going to turn a normal kid into a school shooter," he says.

Gaming to Excess Researchers voice other concerns about video games as well. Anderson points out that

recent studies in the U.S. and Singapore indicate that nearly 8 percent of teen gamers show signs of addiction. For instance, instead of paying attention in school, those students are instead thinking about when they'll be able to get back to their video games. Anderson and other scientists are also concerned that risk taking in games might lead to risk taking in real life: Can I drive through that red light and beat that other car? a gamer might think when behind the wheel of a real car.

In the school realm, as video games have become more and more popular, SAT scores linked to communication skills have been declining. Though no one has proved video games cause lower scores, researchers are pointing to this correlation: Teens are spending time playing games that they once spent reading. Educators know that the more a student reads, the higher he or she is likely to score on tests that measure verbal ability.

And Now the Good News Here's a fact: Many of you out there really like playing video games and don't plan to

stop. David A., 18, of Scituate, Mass., loves playing on his Xbox, especially Call of Duty and sports games. "It's a way of being with your friends when you're home relaxing. It's competitive and fun, but I only do it when I have extra time," he says. So if your attitude is similar to David's, chances are you too are part of the 92 percent of teens who aren't addicted.

Playing video games can be educational, in fact. Because many teachers are fascinated with video game technology, they are working on ways to bring it into the classroom. Philip A. Allen, a professor at the University of Akron, has developed a system using a Kinect camera to help teach high school and college students engineering. Allen believes that many concepts in science, engineering, and technology are visual and can be learned better on a gaming console than through diagrams in a book.

"We need to work backwards," says Ali Carr-Chellman, who studies learning and gaming at the College of Education at Penn State University. "We have to use "what teens learn from games." For instance, if an English class is studying the novel The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain, she believes it is legitimate to ask, "What have you learned from World of Warcraft about leadership that might apply here?"

Video games can teach perseverance and teamwork. "There is an educational component we're missing," Carr-Chellman adds. "Teens learn better when schools pay attention to student interests."

Psychologists and educators also point to the positive aspects of some physically interactive video games. One recent study, for instance, reported that playing the Wii Fit step and Hula Hoop activities at the intermediate level had the same effects as a brisk walk. Still,

Arlington, Mass., 16-year-old Cady T. thinks it's actually pretty hard to get a good workout with a game console. "Wii yoga is challenging," she says, "but it's not like I'm doing a bunch of crunches."

To Game or Not to Game If you brush off a friend who wants to shoot some hoops because you'd rather be

gaming--you may want to take a deep breath and get outside. There are many ways to have fun, and not all involve a game console, especially when you're playing alone, says Lindsey C., 17, of Chestnut Ridge, N.Y. "I used to play video games, but now I want to be with my friends. There's much more stuff to do out of the house than on a computer game," she adds.

Do You Game Too Much? When a friend comes over you

1) stick a video game in the console. 2) hang out and talk. 3) make plans and then go out somewhere together. 4) head to the kitchen and cook something.

When it's raining you 1) stick a video game in the console. 2) turn on the TV. 3) text a friend to chat about something that happened at school. 4) read a book or a magazine.

It's Saturday morning. You 1) stick a video game in the console. 2) meet your friends at the mall. 3) go to band practice. 4) grab a basketball and head out to shoot some hoops.

Tally up the numbers next to each of your answers. If you scored 4 or above, video games probably aren't your life. But if you chose number 1 every time, think hard about other things you enjoy. Make a list of those things, and say good-bye to your console--for at least the rest of the day.

Source CitationBernstein, Linda. "Gaming the console: are video games bad for you? Read up on the research, and then decide." Current Health Teens, a Weekly Reader publication Mar. 2012: 13+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Dec. 2015.

Internal Citation(Bernstein)

Ten-country comparison suggests there’s little or no link between video games and gun murders

By Max Fisher December 17, 2012

The search for meaning is a natural response to any tragedy, and the latest U.S. mass shooting is eliciting questions about, among other things, the potential role of violent video games. After all, with kids and increasingly teenagers spending so much time hammering away at simulated shooters, is it any wonder when they pick up actual guns? Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod lamented on Twitter, "In NFL post-game: an ad for shoot 'em up video game. All for curbing weapons of war. But shouldn't we also quit marketing murder as a game?"

But it turns out that the data just doesn't support this connection. Looking at the world's 10 largest video game markets yields no evident, statistical correlation between video game consumption and gun-related killings. 

It's true that Americans spend billions of dollars on video games every year and that the United States has the highest firearm murder rate in the developed world. But other countries where video games are popular have much lower firearm-related murder rates. In fact, countries where video game consumption is highest tend to be some of the safest countries in the world, likely a product of the fact that developed or rich countries, where consumers can afford expensive games, have on average much less violent crime.

Here's the data for video game spending per capita and gun-related homicides in the world's 10 largest video game markets. The United States, as it so often does on gun-related statistics, really stands out:

Click to enlarge. Data source: UNODC, others. (Max Fisher/Washington Post)

Of course, these comparisons assume that national video game markets are largely uniform, with Dutch, Korean and American consumers playing the same spectrum of games. With the possible exception of Japan, video game markets are quite global, so this is an imperfect but generally safe assumption.

Now, if there were in fact a close correlation between video game consumption and gun violence, then we would expect the data to trend upward. That is, we would expect that the countries that spend the most on video games per person would also be the most violent, by virtue of the effects of the games. Here's what the data should look like, in that case:

Click to enlarge. Data source: UNODC, others. (Max Fisher/Washington Post)

But, the data does not show this trend. Here's a linear trend line for this data. Again, with only 10 datapoints, it's not a perfect comparison. But it's hard to ignore that this data actually suggests a slight downward shift in violence as video game consumption increases. 

Click to enlarge. Data source: UNODC, others. (Max Fisher/Washington Post)

So, what have we learned? That video game consumption, based on international data, does not seem to correlate at all with an increase in gun violence. That countries where video games are popular also tend to be some of the world's safest (probably because these countries are stable and developed, not because they have video games). And we also have learned, once again, that America's rate of firearm-related homicides is extremely high for the developed world.

Source CitationFisher, Max. "Ten-country Comparison Suggests There’s Little or No Link between Video

Games and Gun Murders." The Washington Post. The Washington Post, 12 Dec. 2012. Web. 19 Dec. 2015.

Internal Citation(Fisher)

Why crime is falling so fast: how social media obsession, smartphone addiction, and even violent video games, have made the world a surprisingly safe place

Maclean's, August 10, 2015

JEREMY COOK WAS just 18 when he was murdered, a crime that made national headlines. Last month, while on a trip to London, Ont., the Brampton teen forgot his iPhone in a taxi. Using the phone's built-in tracking feature, he later traced the device to a parking lot, where

he confronted three men in a car. When he tried to stop the vehicle from driving away by grabbing the driver's side door, it's alleged that one of the occupants of the car gunned Cook down. His body was found behind a strip mall. The phone was found abandoned, along with the car. One suspect, a 23-yearold Calgary man, later drowned in Ottawa after being pursued by police, while a second suspect, 24, turned himself in after being named in a Canada-wide arrest warrant for the charge of second-degree murder. A third suspect has been identified but is not cooperating with police.

The crime, which became known as the "cellphone slaying," left the nation stunned. A group of young men had allegedly killed another young man over a mobile phone. For those who believe that crime is out of control in this country, who harbour suspicions that growing numbers of youth are prone to violence, and who are upset by what they see as society's dangerous addiction to technology, Cook's tragic death confirmed their worst fears. "A cellphone!" one man exclaimed in the London Free Press. "Society is changing." The warnings from police at the time that phone robberies were rampant, and could lead to tragedy, only served to heighten the panic.

But away from the headlines and breaking-news hits, it turns out there's another side to the story of youth and crime and technology, and it's one that's becoming increasingly apparent to some who study the world of crime. It's already well-established that the story of crime in Canada does not align with our darkest fears. Indeed, since 1991, both violent and non-violent Criminal Code offences have been falling. Just last week, Statistics Canada released figures showing that crime rates continued their decades-long decline. Last year, the overall crime rate, as measured by the number of incidents reported to police per 100,000 people, hit a low not seen since 1969.

Most of the focus is on the top line number. But it's only when the statistics are broken down by age group that the most powerful and dramatic underlying trend becomes apparent: Canada is fast becoming a safer place, largely because huge numbers of those aged 18 to 24, the slice of the population historically responsible for the largest share of crimes in the country, are staying on the right side of the law.

Consider the following, drawn from data that StatsCan provided to Maclean's about police charges for a selection of criminal violations. Over the five-year period between 2009 and 2013, the latest year for which numbers are available, charges laid for robbery, motor vehicle theft, aggravated assault and breaking and entering among those aged 18 to 24 dropped by between 23 and 31 per cent, while the charges stemming from the most serious crime, homicide, were down 29 per cent. (Because charges are more specific than incidents and reflect varying response rates across the country, only the last five years of StatsCan data is comparable.) There were declines among other demographic groups, as well as some increases (see sidebar) but consistently, the biggest drop in crime was among 18- to 24-year-olds--which, as the group that commits the most crimes in Canada, goes a long way to explaining why the country's overall crime rate is falling so precipitously.

The overall crime drop has been described as the most important criminological phenomenon of modern times and, in North America, Europe, Australia and other developed countries, many common street crimes have fallen by half since the early 1990s. What's behind the phenomenon? Theories abound, including better security--from improved locks, closed-circuit television and the widespread adoption of home alarm systems--as well as the sheer number of police on the street and bodies in prison. But a growing number of criminologists are also considering another factor they argue has not been given its due--namely, our obsession

with technology. "Frankly, there are more interesting things to do indoors now than going out and nicking things," says leading British criminologist Ken Pease.

Pease, a visiting professor at several British universities who has published hundreds of academic papers on crime and was once head of the police research group at the U.K. government's Home Office, is a firm believer that improved security has helped to drive down crime levels. But he argues that the staggering reach of the online world--whether through video games, social media, access to instant and unlimited video and texting, always within arm's reach on our smartphones--is reshaping the modern world to such an extent that it may even be affecting crime rates. "Cyberspace becomes more interesting than meatspace," he says, referring to a term for the physical world first coined by American-Canadian science-fiction author William Gibson. "As our lives move from meatspace to cyberspace, the opportunity for violent crime and acquisitive crime change and reduce in the aggregate, and that's what I think has happened."

Pease is not alone. Other researchers, as well as those working in law enforcement, including the president of the Canadian Police Association and those on the front lines with at-risk youth, are observing fundamental changes taking place among the most digitally connected generation the world has ever known. It's a realm of criminology research that may only be in its infancy, but in future, it may show that our chronic technology habit, long criticized for its corroding influence on society, is actually keeping us safe.

THE HARMFUL EFFECTS of technology have been well-catalogued: It's been blamed for obesity, dwindling attention spans and sedentary lifestyles. Texting and walking is hazardous, while texting and driving can be fatal. Meanwhile, medical experts regularly warn us that Internet addiction is breaking up families, that the glowing screens of our devices are making us sleep-deprived, and that social media are making us depressed. And that's just the cat-loving Internet. Anxieties about video games are even more entrenched, with the horrors of the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Colorado--when two students, avid players of the violent video game Doom, killed 13 teachers and classmates--still echoing in the debate over whether virtual violence can spill over into the real world.

Yet for all the warnings, headlines and medical advice, our infatuation with technology continues to grow, particularly among the young. One survey of 5,000 Canadian students found 99 per cent have access to the Internet outside of school, while 45 per cent use a smartphone to go online. It's a similar story among young adults. Another study, by the Pew Research Center, found a quarter of American teens reported that they're online "almost constantly," with the typical teen sending 30 texts a day. And when people aren't updating their Facebook status, they're playing games. According to the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, nearly two-thirds of adults aged 18 to 34 play video games, while among children and teens, that figure reaches 80 per cent.

This digital preoccupation has been the focus of a multitude of studies, by neurologists, sociologists and psychologists. A few years ago in the U.K., criminologist Mike Sutton and psychologist Mark Griffiths, who studies gaming and addiction, first realized the extent to which their fields overlap. So together, they came up with what they call the crime substitution hypothesis, which suggests that the overwhelming preoccupation with our devices may have contributed to the crime drop.

Like many British ideas, this one turned up at the pub. Griffiths, director of the International Gaming Research Unit at Nottingham Trent University, was having a pint with his friend Sutton, who teaches at the same school. Griffiths had noted the rising obsession with

gaming and social media among young people; Sutton had often mentioned the inexplicable drop in crime over roughly the same period. That conversation resulted in a research paper proposing the crime substitution hypothesis.

The theory goes like this: Crime requires an offender with the motivation and ability to act--to go out and "nick" things--as well as a suitable victim, and the absence of someone who can prevent the crime from happening. This meants that if substantial numbers of young people are inside and not on the streets, they are less likely to become either offenders or victims. These incremental changes in lifestyle from moment to moment can add up to significant shifts in society.

Though Griffiths admits their theory is "speculative and correlational," and still requires much research to confirm, it does have what he calls "good faith validity"--it rings true. People his age and his children's age have an almost pathological need to look at their phones when the devices buzz with an incoming text, Facebook message or email. "The bottom line is, if teenagers are so engaged in social networking or playing their computer games, they can't physically do two activities at one time," Griffiths says. "If you've got great millions of children in whatever jurisdiction playing online, particularly during their leisure time, this is a time they can't possibly be engaged in crime, as well."

There is growing support for this idea. Harvard economist Lawrence Katz has suggested that "video games and websites" may have provided such an effective distraction during the 2008 financial collapse that the crime wave predicted by conventional wisdom during hard economic times did not materialize. Meanwhile, a 2013 study published by the American Psychological Association found that violent crime actually went down, even as video game sales went up. The authors chalk this up to either catharsis through simulated violence, or the simple fact that if violent people are drawn to violent video games, they keep the streets safer by staying--and playing--at home.

And it's not only crime; rising rates of technology use also correlate with a drop in other undesirable behaviours. Research has suggested that the same forces have helped to discourage young people from risky sex, drug use and aggression. The post-Millennial demographic known as Generation Z, defined loosely as those born after 1995, is known to be better-behaved than their older peers. As they enter their late teens, the most likely age of criminal inclination, Gen Z youths are smoking less, graduating more, having fewer pregnancies, and committing fewer robberies, car thefts and murders.

Sixteen-year-old Corick Henlin grew up in a tough part of west Toronto that has a steady undercurrent of violence. He and his friends can spot gangs by their crews or their cars. But they have no interest in that lifestyle. They spend most of their time playing video games, chatting to their thousands of Facebook friends and texting girls--Henlin especially, his friends tease. He plays the odd game of basketball, which saves his phone battery, he says. It's the one time when he's not using it.

As a digital native, or "screenager" (someone who can't recall a time before the Internet), Henlin says, "Technology is ruling our lives." Although he admits all that screen time can breed laziness, he sees it as a useful diversion. "Before electronics, people were forced to go outside to have fun, but that's why there were more problems on the streets," he says. "Nowadays, with electronics, you can play, like, a fighting game on PS3. When you play games, you can cause trouble on that. You can cause trouble and not actually get in trouble."

ONE MIGHT ASSUME that the president of the Canadian Police Association would attribute the drop in crime to, above all, ace policing. But when Tom Stamatakis, a former police

constable in Vancouver for 19 years, is asked for his theory, one of the first things he talks about is technology. "Perhaps, generations ago, when [young people] weren't as engaged with technology as they are now, you'd have to go out to find entertainment, as opposed to staying in your home and getting into Xbox or being engaged with your friends through social media," he says. "Technology definitely plays some role in influencing youth and the kind of activities they're involved in. If you go back to a time before cellphones and social media and game consoles, there would be boredom and you would leave your home, be out and about in the community with friends, looking for activities to engage in."

Those "activities" might have included common crimes of youth, such as shoplifting or vandalism. And while those are petty crimes, they can still serve as a gateway to more serious crimes later in life. Researchers have found that involvement in petty crimes at a young age increases the likelihood a person will be involved in crime as an adult. Likewise, if an individual has not participated in criminal activity by early adulthood, he's less likely to start later on. Given the fact that the rate of youths accused of crimes under the Youth Criminal Justice Act dropped by almost two-thirds between 2004 and 2014, that means the pool of potential criminals in the future is also shrinking, and the crime rate is likely to decline exponentially faster.

Stamatakis believes that measures to divert young people from entering the criminal justice system and changing demographics have also played a role. He points out that technology has also created brand-new problems for police, such as cyberbullying and the relatively new problem of smartphone thefts, which some police have described as reaching "epidemic" levels. But even here, technology is helping to turn that around. The introduction of so-called "kill switches" on smartphones, which allow owners to remotely disable their devices, contributed to a 30 per cent drop in the number of phone thefts last year, according to a recent Consumer Reports study.

The pervasive nature of devices such as camera phones may also serve to deter crime. A 2013 research paper from the University of Pennsylvania Law School argued that mobile phones have played a role in discouraging violent crime and, to a lesser extent, property crime, because of the increased risk of being caught. It's easier than ever for a victim or bystander to phone 911 or record a video of an attack, the authors note in "Mobile phones and crime deterrence: an underappreciated link," which they claim is the first study to test mobile phones' link to the crime drop in the U.S.

Not everyone is convinced that chronic use of technology is helping to bring down crime. The crime substitution theory put forth by Griffiths and Sutton, for one, has faced detractors. University of Toronto criminologist Anthony Doob considers such theories "a dime a dozen," because there have been countless changes to society since 1991. Likewise, Simon Fraser University criminology professor Graham Farrell isn't convinced. He's a former graduate student of Pease's in the U.K. and a childhood friend of Sutton's. Farrell attributes most of the crime drop to an increase in security. Since "debut crimes" such as car thefts and shoplifting have become more difficult, young people may be less likely to start a criminal career in the first place, he says. "That might be the stepping stone to why some violent crimes have gone down," Farrell says. He's also skeptical that video games, social media and smartphones contributed to the crime drop, which began in 1991, before Google and texting and before Gen Z was even born. But while he's quick to point out that correlation is not causation, he's not totally against further investigation to finally prove or disprove the hypothesis. "Mike [Sutton]'s been talking about it for years," Farrell says from Vancouver. "I say, 'This is interesting. Where is the evidence?'"

His former professor Pease is considering that challenge right now. Pease has proposed that one of his current post-doc students at the University College London take a more rigorous look at crime and technology to see if a causal link can be identified.

In the meantime, those on the front lines working with at-risk youth are already realizing the power of keeping youth digitally connected.

EVEN IF THE proof isn't absolute, investment in technology has worked its way into social programs in Canada and the U.S. In June, the Federal Communications Commission expanded its Lifeline program, or the so-called "Obamaphone," which provides low-income Americans with subsidized phone plans. The agency plans to extend the program to broadband Internet in recognition of the fact that web access is essential to being a hilly functioning part of society.

Meanwhile, programs providing at-risk youths with access to mobile phones have popped up in Vancouver, Edmonton and Toronto, funded by phone companies. Taylor-Rae Foster, a program coordinator at the Youth Restorative Action Project in Edmonton, which has distributed phones to 30 teens aged 17 and under, acknowledges that the devices could facilitate drug deals or gang activity. Instead, she says they've been used by youth to find safe places to sleep and to keep in touch with friends.

The Internet, especially Facebook, is often the only way at-risk youths can stay in touch with their families, says Kelly Holmes, executive director of Resource Assistance for Youth in Winnipeg, an agency that deals with street-involved youth up to age 29. The agency's 15 computers are used by roughly 20 young people a day. "The demand is so much more, and there's so much more for them to do in making contact, Facebooking, applying for jobs and checking out vacancies for housing," she says. "It's a pretty important tool."

In the same city, emergency physician Dr. Carolyn Snider is steering a pilot project that tries to reduce the number of hospital visits by victims of violence, some of whom she would see repeatedly, by connecting her patients with a support worker through technology. The youths, typically between 14 and 24 years old and often with ties to gangs, might come in having been beaten, stabbed or shot. They are now given a basic mobile phone they can use to text their support workers, who can then check on their work or housing situations, as well as their health and recovery. Connecting by mobile phone "has been very successful for us, and really an integral part of our intervention, in a sense," Snider says, "because keeping in contact with youth who are so vulnerable and so transient at times is a real challenge." Snider says it can be tough convincing "higher-ups" it's worthwhile handing out phones. "As you can imagine, some of the people are like, 'You're giving phones to these high-risk youth? What are you thinking?' But it's a big part of (the project)."

Although official measures of the program's success won't be available until next year, Snider says she expects to see a drop in return visits to the hospital, an increase in school enrolment, and a decrease in involvement with the criminal justice system.

Calvin Cheng, 25, grew up in Toronto's Regent Park neighbourhood, an inner-city public housing complex in Toronto once notorious for dangerous gangs like the Asian Assassinz. He and a handful of friends were well aware of the gang's coming and goings. Now a paramedic, Cheng credits his success to programs such as Pathways to Education, a national non-profit that works to ensure high school students in low-income neighbourhoods don't drop out. And he's equally effusive about the support of his parents, who, even though they worked for minimum wage, sank their savings into buying Cheng a fancy computer. And that, he says, was where he and his friends spent "pretty much all day, every day," battling it out on games like World of

Warcraft and Counter-Strike, which features a "deathmatch" mode as an option. "I guess it was good, because they knew I wasn't getting involved in other things I shouldn't be--because I was at home playing video games every day," he says.

Matthew Johnson, director of education for the Ottawa-based digital media literacy non-profit MediaSmarts, says we are witnessing a bundle of social changes that do include crime reduction, as well as an increase in sedentary behaviour, and the general sense that it's safer to be indoors.

But while it's easy to worry about kids these days being attached to their devices, and the hand-wringing about video games and Facebook is likely to continue, it's clear the digital revolution has brought enormous positive changes, often in unexpected ways. Society will continue to grapple with social ills such as crime and addiction, but, with access to new information, ideas and distractions, it's possible our very dependence on technology has actually made the world a little safer.

Not doing the crime Across five diverse types of crime, the biggest declines in the rate of police charges have

been in the 18-to-24 age group, which is responsible for much of the criminal activity in the country.There's a surprising outlier to the general drop in crime

Crime may be down among the young, but that's not the case with their elders. Charges laid against Canadians in the 55-to-64 and 65-to-89 age groups actually increased between 2009 and 2013 for crimes such as homicide, breaking and entering, robbery, vehicle theft and aggravated assault. This appears to follow an international trend among countries with aging populations In the U.K., eight men between the ages of 48 and 76 were charged in a massive jewellery heist from Hatton Garden in London's diamond district this spring. Jewels and cash valued at millions of pounds were stolen from a vault, according to British media, which has dubbed the accused men "Dad's Army." Meanwhile, in Japan, police took more action against elderly people than teens for the first time since data collection by age group began in 1989, the Japan Times reported last week. Japan's juvenile crime rate was down 15 per cent during the first six months of 2014, compared to 2013, due to a drop in theft and violent crimes, while the number of crimes among the elderly rose almost 11 per cent. It's important to remember that even if there's a big jump in the crime rate for seniors, the actual number of charges are small. For example, the rate for aggravated assault among those aged 65 to 89 jumped by nearly 40 per cent, but that reflected an increase of only 10 additional charges.

Still, it's not clear why this is happening. In South Korea, where a similar trend exists, the rise in crime has been attributed to "poverty, illness and loneliness" among seniors. At the same time, though, today's seniors are more physically active than in generations past, allowing those inclined to commit crime to keep it up. It's also possible some are the criminals responsible for the crime wave of the 1970s, only they're now 40 years older.

Source CitationMcKnight, Zoe. "Why crime is falling so fast: how social media obsession, smartphone

addiction, and even violent video games, have made the world a surprisingly safe place." Maclean's 10 Aug. 2015: 38+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Dec. 2015.

Internal Citation(McKnight)