Am I the only one here who sees the kids as blameworthy? Sure, the outside stimuli of alcohol and, yes, mortal kombat contributed, the kids weren't coerced or fooled into doing anything against their will. At what age is a child's actions attributable to that child and not the parent? I think that's the question that this thread seeks to answer, and it's a toughie. You can't just blame the parents, because that assumes a hell of a lot about the family, not to mention that it's the first step on a slippery slope of blame-transference. On the other hand, is a child that, like most children of a young age, has little or no "Theory of Mind" or, literally, sympathy in relation to others really accountable for his or her actions?
EDIT: just because I feel like ranting :3
Just so you all know, this manslaughter would not have happened without the outside influence of the game. However, the same could be said for almost any external stimulus at the time, including the alcohol. That is my major problem with Jack Thompson. He makes a leap of judgment from the fact that without the video game, the murder would not have happened, to a theory of causation; that video games cause violence. Even if violence was consistently higher in people who played violent video games, that does not infer causation.
Here's an idea, JT.
Maybe violent people are more likely to play violent video games, and maybe violent video games don't make people any more violent than they already are.
Statistically, they're equally likely.