When does virtual violence become criminal?

My boss and I got into an interesting debate stemming from my desire for a personal holodeck (a holodeck replicates tangible objects, meaning you cannot tell the difference between reality and generated matter inside the deck). Who wouldn't enjoy going into a holodeck to simulate their favorite action game? I'd take my chainsaw and head straight after some zombies, and possibly follow-up by blasting away a Big Daddy in Rapture.

But what happens when someone wants to play some Grand Theft Auto? When your simulation replicates reality to a point where it is indiscernable? If you enter your virtual world and murder someone, or commit some other criminal act - and I'm sure you can think of a few without naming them explicitly - should it be punishable?

If every holodeck session is recorded, and you have a history of participating in violent or deadly activities, should it be submissable as evidence against the accused in a real court (mental health evidence)? Should you be criminally liable for actions committed in the holodeck?

I've played my share of graphic titles, and love 'em, but it really got me questioning my premises when the delivery method shifted from television to a more realistic simulation.

Cheers,

Boz

I'm going to reference another work of fiction to answer your question.

"The spirits do not distinguish between intent and deed". Attempted murder is a punishable offense like successful (or real if you will).

Your intent in playing video games is to murder or defeat virtual characters. If someone goes into playing a video game with the intent to use it as a tool to hone their skills at murder and harming others, then it ceases to be a game no matter the media and is "deadly serious".

long story short, no. it shouldn't be admissable, just because i commit a simulated/fantasy version of something bad/violent it doesn't make me a bad person and it doesn't mean i'd actually do those things to a real breathing person. should stomping on goombas be admissable evidence in a wife beater on trial?

I'm going to reference another work of fiction to answer your question.

"The spirits do not distinguish between intent and deed". Attempted murder is a punishable offense like successful (or real if you will).

Your intent in playing video games is to murder or defeat virtual characters. If someone goes into playing a video game with the intent to use it as a tool to hone their skills at murder and harming others, then it ceases to be a game no matter the media and is "deadly serious".

SemiMaster

But said person would not be attempting to commit murder, they'd be fully conscious of the fact that it was a simulation.

The only difference between this discussion and that of video games or other violent media is the level of realism, which does not in any way equal intent to harm. And as far as using it to hone one's skills in killing someone, the same could be said of just about any activity that would improve one's proficiency with a weapon, from actual military or law enforcement training right down to chopping wood. Ability doesn't equal intent either.

Now to answer the original question, No. Not only would imaginary activity in the holodeck no be admissible in court, it shouldn't even be monitored or recorded in the first place without the customer's consent, and even then it would only be for the his/her private use.

Legal implications aside, I don't need an holodeck. I think part of the fun in playing violent games is knowing they are fictitious. When I play GTA I don't pretend it's real, I don't pretend I'm beating people up in the streets for real. I don't want to convince myself I'm killing real people in Call of Duty. I'm content with knowing I'm playing a simulation and won't accept it in any other way. The day I start wishing the game was real will be the day I'll stop gaming.Black_Knight_00

The law only protects living things, and even then people get the vast majority of the rights. All a holodeck generates is very advanced AI. It wouldn't be real people, just extremely complex programs. Besides, you forget to take into consideration the fact that if we start considering such advanced AI people then turning off the holodeck/changing to a new simulation would be murder (since you essentially kill the AI when you do so). So no, killing/harming/mugging/raping/etc. an AI would not be considered a crime.

Seeing a holodeck in my lifetime would be a dream come true, but there's no way in hell I'd use it to recreate actions such as decapitating a zombie with a chainsaw. I'm a huge Manhunt fan, but the difference between video games and 100% realistic simulation is vast, in my opinion. I mean, just think about it for a second - chopping someone's head off with blood splattering all over your face...Jesus, I don't think I'd have the stomack for it.

From just a purely technical point of view, what you are doing is utilizing the program as its programmer intended. Therefore, if there is a legal implication in the mass murder of 1's and 0's, then the person (or persons) who programmed that simulation are accessories. ;)

However, since we're talking about just data here (since its just a representation of reality, not reality itself), then what you are doing isn't illegal. Furthermore, assuming you got the simulation through a legal retailer or other such means, then the government would have no reason to prosecute you for your actions.

I dont believe that what anyone does inside a virtual space, that does not affect another directly, is a problem or anything. Like in GTA , it affects nothing that I killed 500 people with a golf club. Its all pixels and my own will to act them out.

On the other hand, talk about De-sensitizing.... Kill perfect recreations of humans all day in a machine, It would do 5000% times more than seeing what tiny little of death and war we see on tv now. It would be invaluable for military use.