Yesterday, Raymond brought you the verdict in the murder trial of Daniel Petric, who was found guilty of murdering his mother and shooting his father over Halo 3. In the decision, Judge James Burge decided to drop the gavel on video games and how much it totally messes up your mind.
It's also great because he starts by saying that he and the court doesn't "know enough about these video games," but then follows that up by affirming "the same physiological responses occur [Ed: when play video games] that occur in the ingestion of some drugs."
So what is it, Judge? Do you need to know more about "these video games" or are you ready to write a scientific journal on your "firm belief" that gaming has physiological effects on brain chemistry?
I know judges are all about injecting their personal beliefs into their case summaries in court, but one should probably refrain from stating beliefs when it comes to science.
Furthermore, Judge Burge said, "I firmly believe that Daniel Petric had no idea at the time he hatched this plot that if he killed his parents, they would be dead forever." That sounds like insanity to me, which would probably act as a defense and lead to institutionalization, not imprisonment.
Judge Burge, however, agreed with the jury and went with the guilty verdict. Apparently, when games make you insane, you're just fake insane. It doesn't hold up in court. Don't take this as legal advice, though. My only law experience is several marathons of Law & Order on TNT. *doink doink*
I long for the day when crazy people that commit murder and also happen to play video games isn't seen by a judge as an opportunity to attribute blame to video games. Some people just ain't right in the head.