Beasley was lucky for a convicted killer. He received a sentence of life without parole after his conviction for murder in connection with an armed robbery and theft. The State had requested the death penalty. The State's evidence included testimony that Beasley and his girlfriend (also tried along with two accomplices) were obsessed with the characters in the movie, "Natural Born Killers," a fictional account of a crime spree that included murder, rape, kidnapping and a prison uprising.
But the Georgia Supreme Court didn't have much to say about why it allowed a free showing of the movie to the jury. It was true that Mr. Beasley's obsession for "Natural Born Killers" led him to pattern his killing spree after the movie's central character Mickey Knox. On appeal, the defendant asserted that it was error to have shown the movie to the jury because the movie as evidence was irrelevant as it added nothing to the testimony.
Holding: The Court affirmed the trial court's decision to show the film, tersely observing that because "Beasley viewed the movie an extraordinary number of times and he identified with characters in the movie . . . we conclude that the movie was relevant to show Beasley's bent of mind."
The dissent (joined by the Chief Justice) engaged in an extended argument analyzing why any relevance of the movie to Beasley's motive or state of mind was outweighed by the potential it had to mislead. The jury, the dissent maintained, could be prejudiced "by blurring the distinction between Ronnie Beasley, the person on trial, and Mickey Knox, the fictional character in the movie."
The dissent also discerned a blurring between two different types of demonstrative evidence—real and illustrative. Real evidence would be videotape of the actual crime. Illustrative evidence could include a videotaped reenactment to aid the jury in understanding the issues. This was neither according to the minority. The live testimony about Beasleys obsession with the movie and plan to imitate it was sufficient. To show the movie, which added nothing, was prejudicial according to this view. Nevertheless, the majority affirmed the guilty verdict.
 | Michael Welner, M.D. Chairman The Forensic Panel |
Dr. Welner comments: Viewing an Oliver Stone movie, one is easily overwhelmed by the in-your-face provocative imagery and screaming suggestion. He draws criticism, in part, because his fiction-as-fact depictions are so real as to leave the viewer feeling manipulated or, well, manipulated. And so we visit the impact of "Natural Born Killers," Mr. Stone's effort to wake America up to the dangers of our sensation seeking appetite for violence.
Stone, unfortunately, never accounted for the shattering power his movie would have on those simply incapable of processing the horror of the message. The emerging underground market for basement films that present authentic murders and tortures explodes any myth that the sadistic don't seek out this type of material to vindicate their impulses. Movies or training videos?
Available research struggles with issues of causation, because 1) it is so difficult to control for other factors that might promote violence and other forms of pathologic aggression, and 2) because the film industry has the resources to divert attention from this poison.
There are enough available studies, however, to appreciate the dimensions of a cause and effect relationship between viewing violent films and subsequent behavior. Berkowitz and Rawlings (Abnormal and Social Psychol., 66 (5) 405-12,1963) found that youths and young adults who viewed violent segments from films then considered violent were afterward more likely to em ploy aggression. Phillips (Amer. Social. Rev. 48, 560-8, 1983) found that televised boxing matches were related to a subsequent significant increase in death by homicide of men who were similar in age and ethnicity to the loser of the match.
Even a network (CBS-BBC) sponsored study of 1565 London boys aged 13-17 found that high violence exposed viewers were more likely later involved in interpersonal violence. (Belson W., Television Violence and the Adolescent Boy Farnborough, England, 1978). The longest study, 22 years (Huesmann LR, Eron L et al., Dev. Psych. 20 1120-34, 1984) examined a group of 211 boys controlled for parental practices and disciplining behavior. The group showed a correlation between levels of viewed television violence at age eight and serious interpersonal violence at age thirty.
Taking this research into the crime scene, we add the findings of Ekman and colleagues (Television and Social Behavior, Vol 5, in: Television's Effects: Further Explorations. US Govt Printing Offc Wash DC, 1972). Their study of 5-9 year old children concluded that children who showed the most pleasure or interested facial expressions in viewing violent programming were most likely to hurt another child, even if it was to their own detriment. Drabman and Thomas (Dev. Psych. 10:418-21, 1974) found that children who view violent television programs are more willing to tolerate violence by others.
Most Vulnerable to Impact by a Violent Film
- Immature, fragile, poor sense of identity
- No alternative role models
- Repeated exposure to the film
- Tolerate violence in others
- Sadistic history
- Obsessive connection with a violent film
- Crime duplicates elements of the movie
- Defendant assumes qualities of the movie character
So how can we apply this to the defendant with an avowed fascination for pulp carnage? Those most likely to be especially affected show themselves to be vulnerable to modeling, are more willing to tolerate violence in others, have been repeatedly exposed to, and become obsessed in a vacuum of alternative influence. The crime setting may duplicate elements of the depicted violence; the victim may inspire staging that reenacts art.
Before prosecutors run for cover from a new defense, the "Natural Developed Killer Syndrome," they should focus their efforts on discerning a previous history of sadism. Very likely, someone so primitive to be driven to violence by a movie has already shown aggression, if more muted, in the past. Still, the overwhelming power of film to impact a fragile and violent person teetering on the edge of psychosis cannot be dismissed with a simple thumbs down.
