How do you guys feel about prosecutors using rap lyrics in indictments?

14,681
20,099
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Being the legal representation for these rappers would be very difficult. These guys just can't sit in jail and be quiet while little warriors try to get them out. Is tweeting celebrities a sign of intimidation? No but Thugga knows he's not supposed to have a phone in jail that he can help himself but tweet





 
Last edited:

ace

4,074
4,155
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Being the legal representation for these rappers would be very difficult. These guys just can't sit in jail and be quiet while little warriors try to get them out. Is tweeting celebrities a sign of intimidation? No but Thugga knows he's not supposed to have a phone in jail that he can help himself but tweet






I don’t think he has a phone, but the jails have tablets now that you can get on the internet with. It was my understanding that social media was blocked but Fulton County always fumbles the ball when it comes to following regulations.
 
145,919
119,223
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
IS it really the only art form being brought into question? Folks keep saying that but is it even true?
 
13,536
26,852
Joined
Apr 16, 2014
But if Johnny was killed on 29th street and you make a song saying I lit up Johnny with the Johnny on 29th street, shouldn't a prosecutor be able to use that as evidence?
Also, aren't they only able to use lyrics as additional evidence and not necessarily the main or only evidence?

Correct the prosecutor shouldn't be able to use that song as evidence OR as a tool to get additional evidence.
 

Present

Supporter
4,450
10,610
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Correct the prosecutor shouldn't be able to use that song as evidence OR as a tool to get additional evidence.

Higher courts have upheld this as precedence up until now.

With all these Trump / Republican appointed Judges and Trump / Republicans taking over State level legislatures - things are changing.

Is there any wonder the States that are doing this are all Republican controlled?

Y'all trust them folk if you want too :lol:

Anyway...

If signed into law, the RAP Act will be the first federal law limiting the usage of lyrics in court cases.​

A new bill introduced to the U.S. House of Congress is intended to limit lyrics being used against artists in court by setting the legal criteria for their admission as evidence. The Restoring Artistic Protection Act, or RAP Act, was proposed by Congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia’s fourth district, and Congressman Jamaal Bowman of New York’s sixteenth district. The bill’s supporters acknowledged that the line between artistic expression and evidence has often been drawn by race and genre in the past.

While the specifics of the RAP Act state that “evidence of a defendant’s creative or artistic expression, whether original or derivative, is not admissible against such defendant in a criminal case,” most of the words of the bill are spent on the legal guidelines for when lyrics can be legally admitted as evidence.

“Freddy Mercury did not confess to having ‘just killed a man’ by putting ‘a gun against his head’ and ‘pulling the trigger.’ Bob Marley did not confess to having shot a sheriff. And Johnny Cash did not confess to shooting ‘a man in Reno, just to watch him die,’” reads a release announcing the legislation, as quoted by Variety. And yet, as of 2020, prosecutors have entered lyrics as evidence in over 500 criminal cases.

Of the most recent and highly notable examples, lyrics from Young Thug’s “Slatty” and other songs were cited in charges against the rapper in a May arrest. Charged with violating the RICO Act, an act used to bring sweeping charges against individuals of an organized crime group for contributing to the crimes of other members of the group, prosecutors said that the lyrics were “preserving, protecting and enhancing the reputation, power, and territory of the enterprise.” Prosecutors didn’t need to link the lyrics “I killed his man in front of his momma, like **** lil’ bruh, sister and his cousin” to a specific crime. They only define it as a threat that contributed to organized criminal activity.

Whether or not lyrics are taken literally often depends on the perceived genre of the writing. In a 2017 dissertation, “Rap Lyrics as Evidence: An Examination of Rap Music, Perceptions of Threat, and Juror Decision Making,” author Adam Dunbar determined that not only “the songwriter of the lyrics was viewed more negatively across a number of dimensions when the lyrics were categorized as rap rather than country, punk, or heavy metal,” but that when presented in a courtroom setting, jurors were more likely to attribute lyrics to an admission of guilt when combined with other evidence.

Rather than exclude lyrics from being used in jury trials entirely, the RAP Act’s main function is to take the determination of their relevance out of the hands of jurors and prosecutors by requiring the prosecution to prove their relevance in hearing separate from the jury. In addition to passing these checks, the admissible lyrics must be redacted to include only the relevant facts as approved by the hearing. The bill outlines the requirements for that legal validation as having to prove “by clear and convincing evidence”

 
Last edited:
12,868
31,761
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Correct the prosecutor shouldn't be able to use that song as evidence OR as a tool to get additional evidence.
This is ridiculous.

I agree with the idea that lyrics alone can't be used against a defendant, but if someone commits a crime, volunteers the information publicly, without coercion, we're gonna give them a pass because they admitted to BS to a beat?

Wanna watch these dudes send death threats to their enemies in their TikTok videos while their homies beatbox in the background?

"I was rapping your Honor, you can't prosecute art"

Come on!
 
12,868
31,761
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Rather than exclude lyrics from being used in jury trials entirely, the RAP Act’s main function is to take the determination of their relevance out of the hands of jurors and prosecutors by requiring the prosecution to prove their relevance in hearing separate from the jury. In addition to passing these checks, the admissible lyrics must be redacted to include only the relevant facts as approved by the hearing. The bill outlines the requirements for that legal validation as having to prove “by clear and convincing evidence”
This is reasonable.
 
13,536
26,852
Joined
Apr 16, 2014
This is ridiculous.

I agree with the idea that lyrics alone can't be used against a defendant, but if someone commits a crime, volunteers the information publicly, without coercion, we're gonna give them a pass because they admitted to BS to a beat?

Wanna watch these dudes send death threats to their enemies in their TikTok videos while their homies beatbox in the background?

"I was rapping your Honor, you can't prosecute art"

Come on!

There is a variety of legal ways that don't infringe on Constitutional rights law enforcement can use to obtain evidence that doesn't involve them listening to music.

I will never cosign providing the judicial system with shortcuts to prosecute minorities.
 

Present

Supporter
4,450
10,610
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
There is a variety of legal ways that don't infringe on Constitutional rights law enforcement can use to obtain evidence that doesn't involve them listening to music.

I will never cosign providing the judicial system with shortcuts to prosecute minorities.

Exactly!

Arguing that prosecutors / law enforcement should have even more unchecked powers because "rappers are dumb"?

Couldn't be me :lol:
 
9,292
8,343
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
There is a variety of legal ways that don't infringe on Constitutional rights law enforcement can use to obtain evidence that doesn't involve them listening to music.

I will never cosign providing the judicial system with shortcuts to prosecute minorities.
How is following a lead a shortcut?

Exactly!

Arguing that prosecutors / law enforcement should have even more unchecked powers because "rappers are dumb"?

Couldn't be me :lol:

The logic doesn't make sense bro.

If you clearly state you did something that investigators have evidence that you did, why wouldn't that be admissible?
 

Present

Supporter
4,450
10,610
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
How is following a lead a shortcut?



The logic doesn't make sense bro.

If you clearly state you did something that investigators have evidence that you did, why wouldn't that be admissible?

What part of the following statement is illogical?

Rather than exclude lyrics from being used in jury trials entirely, the RAP Act’s main function is to take the determination of their relevance out of the hands of jurors and prosecutors by requiring the prosecution to prove their relevance in hearing separate from the jury. In addition to passing these checks, the admissible lyrics must be redacted to include only the relevant facts as approved by the hearing. The bill outlines the requirements for that legal validation as having to prove “by clear and convincing evidence”

Prosecutors & State legislatures do not / and should not have the power to self validate what is admissible in court.

Or,

Do you believe that prosecutors / law enforcement should be able to win convictions in civil / criminal court cases by mere character assassination and ad hominem / retain the power to admit whatever they want and call it "evidence"?

If in fact you "clearly state you did something that investigators have evidence that you did" then let a hearing decide if it is admissible...

Not the freaking Prosecutor!

giphy (5).gif
 
Last edited:
145,919
119,223
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
If there was a country musician giving detailed, explicit information on a song about how he molests little kids, something tells me you wouldn't be dying on this hill :lol:

Waiting to see if any of them even touch this example.


Great analogy.

Replace country musician with Michael Jackson.
 
3,053
9,590
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Simple. No bias exists within the US justice system against white people or others being predispositioned to commit child molestation
 
Top Bottom