In this digital age, more and more informational sources start to describe crime scenes. This in turn raises concerns about the influence of this approach on people. This essay will delineate my own opinions mixed with some facts.
To begin with, I want to start with the side I do not approve of. Various folks approve the approach, praising the honesty of the media. While I can not argue with that due to lack of evidence, neither can the supportive side provide evidence of their truthfulness.. The lack of proof is why I think this argument is invalid. Furthermore, many other individuals claim that descriptions are necessary for people to know the truth. To be honest, I agree with this justification but some restrictions still have to be applied due to the underaged audience.
Turning to the side I approve of, I would like to counter-argue with the side that supports the mentioned approach. From my standpoint, not only is it not morally ethical to describe violence, but it is also a bad example for children. Multiple researchers at Stanford university have proven that individuals below the age of 21 are not fully cognitively-developed. This means that any kind of bad influence on the mentioned group of people may harm them mentally. Having strict restrictions would help parents, making sure their children are mentally safe. Another point to consider is that lawbreakers usually tend to do some research before acting. Consequently, they can stumble upon a news article about another person’s unlucky try and learn from their mistakes. This may not seem like that big of an issue, however, various well-known killers have confessed doing so. To give an example, a famous serial- killer by the name of Jeffrey Dahmer has admitted that when faced with a dilemma, he leaned towards the one which was less risky according to his idols.
In conclusion, I tend to support the restrictive side as the arguments mentioned before outweigh any disadvantages given by the other side.