Man Blames Synagogue Firebombing on Video Games, Xbox Console
Well, what do you know, someone that has been accused of a crime is looking towards video games as a reason for their innocence. Anthony M. Graziano, a resident of Lodi, NJ has been charged with attempted murder, aggrivated arson, hate crimes and other felonies for his firebombing of a Synagogue in Rutherford, NJ.
However, when Mr. Graziano appeared in court for his arraignment, his attorney laid out the case that the violent video games that he played on his Xbox console lead him to commit the crimes that he is charged with. The attorney, nor the client, named any actual games that attributed to this crime, but video games and the Xbox console mentioned in general.
It always seems to come to this, where someone commits a henious act, and then when caught for said act, looks for any attributing factor that might of driven that person to commit the crime, instead of just admitting bad judgement. I understand that the US legal system is built around trying to defend you innocence, and a defense lawyers job is to find anything that could assist in this position, but why must it always come down to video games?
Yes, there are violent video games, and people play them, but as many studies have mentioned over the years, violent video games do not lead to crimes against others. If someone is looking to commit a crime like arson, murder or anything else, the problem goes beyond video games, and more towards the psyche of the person involved. Maybe there are other issues going on with Mr. Graziano, but video games did not cause this outburst. Maybe his mental standing cause him to latch onto video games as a crutch, but it was not the underlying factor, no matter how a defense lawyer might try to position that fact.
Instead, we have a man, who at arms length, appears to have deeper issues that go beyond video games, most likely, issues with people and reality in general. If someone cannot separate day to day real life from a video game from reality, there is a bigger issue.
The point at the end of the day is that the man committed a crime, and while a lawyer might posture towards video games being the issue, the conclusion is flawed and wrong. It is instead, about someone that cannot identify between right and wrong at a fundimental level. Every crime does not have to lay at the rest of video games. Some people are bad people and they do bad things. It is not because of an Xbox 360, or any video game.
More importantly, I wish someone might have recognized the signs of instability in this man and found him treatment before he almost killed an entire family from his misguided actions.