Should Rap Lyrics Be Admissable Evidence?
from the bust-a-rhyme,-do-a-dime dept
Other than when it's on television or in a movie, the legal system is a place where rules are supposed to be followed so that justice might be done. Legal dramas where attorneys get creative with how to prosecute alleged criminals make for interesting entertainment, but nobody facing legal action wants to see much in the way of a deviation from the accepted practices. Yet, that seems to be what's happened in cases involving anyone who has engaged in rap music.
Well, this is now coming to a head in the Supreme Court of New Jersey, which will hear a case to decide if prosecutors should be relying heavily on rap lyrics in their cases.
At issue is a prosecutor’s extensive use of rap lyrics, composed by a man named Vonte Skinner, as evidence of his involvement in a 2005 shooting. During Mr. Skinner’s trial in 2008, the prosecutor read the jury 13 pages of violent lyrics written by Mr. Skinner, even though all of the lyrics were composed before the shooting (in some cases, years before) and none of them mentioned the victim or specific details about the crime.It seems hard to justify the use of lyrics like this as anything other than a cynical attempt to influence the jury with what is likely unfair character assassination. Any "gangster rap" artist is going to have lyrics in their songs that read like the manifesto of a criminal. That, however, does not make that person a criminal. Music is art, after all, and nobody goes around suggesting that Gwar actually wants to eat your children, that Martin Scorsese is part of the mob, or that John Carmack murders uber-demons in his spare time. Gangster rap has grown up and been commercialized so that it's as authentic as Kraft American Singles cheese and mostly as palatable. Some gangster rappers are as "gangster" as the teenage surburbanite children who listen to it so faithfully. In the case of Skinner, the other evidence used against him was testimony by witnesses that told more stories than Stephen King. Still, he was convicted by the jury, though that conviction was later overturned.
But in 2012, the conviction was overturned by an appellate court that ruled that the lyrics should never have been admitted as evidence. The majority opinion stated, “We have a significant doubt about whether the jurors would have found defendant guilty if they had not been required to listen to the extended reading of these disturbing and highly prejudicial lyrics.” The state appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.Which is why that case is now before New Jersey's Supreme Court. And, if studies are any indication, they should probably find that heavy reliance on such lyrics prejudice the jury beyond the realm of justice.
To address this question, Stuart Fischoff, a psychologist at California State University, Los Angeles, conducted a study in the late 1990s to measure the impact of gangsta rap lyrics on juries. Participants were given basic biographical information about a hypothetical 18-year-old black male, but only some were shown a set of his violent, sexually explicit rap lyrics. Those who read the lyrics were significantly more likely to believe the man was capable of committing a murder than those who did not.So, where's the line? It's not an easy question to answer, because these lyrics and thoughts most often do come from the accused in these cases, yet the fact that they're artistic expression leaves plenty of room for debate on their usefulness in the case or authenticity in general. It's worth noting that no other genre of art is used in this manner in such a widespread way as rap music. What does that mean? Likely that enthusiastic prosecutors with their win/loss totals in their mind's eye are using them because they haven't been told not to yet. Perhaps that will change soon.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: evidence, rap lyrics
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
:'(
Next you'll tell me there's no Santa.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is a very slippery slope that should not be messed with. If there is concrete evidence that the guy actually murdered or committed any sort of crime then such evidence should be used. Lyrics, artistic creation or whatever that seem very specific could be used in conjunction with other evidence to help form the connections but never alone and never as conclusive evidence. If lyrics were the best they could find against the guy then they have no case at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why?
Personally, I find people who can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality, fiction and non-fiction, to be far more worrisome than people who write and/or draw fictional things, no matter how objectionable or offensive those fictional things would be if real, for the simple fact that they are fiction, and 99.9% of the time the creator knows this, even if the 'critic' can't make make the distinction.
If someone really did commit a crime, then the evidence will show such, bringing up a fictional creation they've made, whether it be song lyrics, a story, or some form of artwork would seem to be nothing more than character assassination, something to sway the jury towards a verdict that has nothing to do with the actual crime(s) committed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Can't copyright be used to exclude this evidence? If not, what is copyright good for?
Tagline #189 (so many it takes a while to choose! And how many taglines do you feeble fans have between you? Not even one!):
What a quandary is commenting on Techdirt! It's a case of dumbed (as in foolish) if you do, or dumbed (as in silent) if you don't!
05:00:07[g-1-7]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why?
In any case it should not be evidence of a crime in any way unless there are obvious elements (ie: direct mention of the victim or something).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What about the performance itself?
(See: Justin Bieber)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Enquiring minds want to know
Example 1:
Jane writes music with lyrics about her desire to harm Bill and with a chorus describing how she would do it.
Later Bill is found dead by this exact method.
Did Jane do it? Could someone else have done it using the method described by Jane?
Example 2:
Bill is found dead.
Later, Jane writes music and lyrics about her desire to harm Bill, how she is glad of his demise, and how she would have done it -- which just happens to be exactly how it was done.
Did Jane do it? Or did Jane just describe what was done?
If Jane described details that were not publicly known, could Jane be a lucky guesser?
Suppose the factorization of a large composite number were carved on Bill's chest. Jane describes this exact factorization in her lyrics. Is Jane an extremely lucky guesser, or is it more likely that Jane has more knowledge of Bills demise (even if Jane did not do it)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What about authors of video games?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Can't copyright be used to exclude this evidence? If not, what is copyright good for?
That only applies to you, Blue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Can't copyright be used to exclude this evidence? If not, what is copyright good for?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why?
Only if backed up by a thorough evaluation by a professional psychologist. Someone could write the most vile, explicit, obscene or violent story, and on it's own the only thing it would mean would be that they wrote a story, due to the 'fantasy is not reality' bit I mentioned above.
'In any case it should not be evidence of a crime in any way unless there are obvious elements (ie: direct mention of the victim or something).'
We seem to be mostly agreeing on this one, though I'd say if it shouldn't be considered evidence of a crime, then it has no business being brought up in court, with the sole exception being similar to what you mentioned, where the song/story/artwork depicts something involved in the crime that wasn't public knowledge, in which case it would make sense to consider it evidence, or at least grounds for investigation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If the lyrics do not describe unknown details of a crime
Evidence only that the author is capable of writing such lyrics.
If you don't have proof of a specific crime, then something violent that someone wrote years ago, and unrelated, is hardly proof that the author committed said crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How many artists use a stage name, authors that use ghost name instead of their real one, or actors that change their name at the behest of their agent so that it sounds more in line with the culture of movies? Just because it is said does not mean it was done.
The main part of court is to get down to the facts. Lyrics are rarely fact and at best are couched in vague language as to be many different things to many different people. By itself, rap lyrics are not facts and if the prosecutor is relying on this solely, he doesn't have a case of merit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Déjà vu! I've heard this type of argument before....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PdVqWuqUsI
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Garbage in, garbage out
Gangsta rap has no socially redeeming values. It is filled with misogny, hate crimes and general mayhem. Just because we can. We already have far too much violence.
If nothing else, maybe allowing this in court will help stamp out some bad music? Too bad we didn't have this option for disco.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Slapping two spoons together, or incidentally your FACE with my hands, to any rhythm is music! Whether it is good music or not just depends upon the listener.
I do not like people who say something is not what it is just because they don't like it. I bet some would say that my slapping you in the face to a spritely tune regarding the comment you made would be more melodious than what can be done with 2 spoons!
I am eclectic. But very a very discriminating eclectic... I perhaps like at most maybe 5% of an entire genre of music, be it Rap, Country, Symphonic, Classical, Jazz, Band, Orchestra, or whatever! But the moment someone says music is not music then they are now "unqualified to judge" music period... I don't care if they can actually make good music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
How do you define music then?
Most rap is despicable.
On the surface that's arguably true, though the "most" is probably a smaller majority than you realize. Either way, though, "despicable" and "art" are hardly mutually exclusive.
You know how many people associate Muslims with terrorism? Same principal applies to rap.
I'm starting to think that while you say "rap", you mean something else...
Some may call it stereotyping, and that's OK. But facts are facts....sometimes they're hard to accept.
...yeah, seems that way...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Garbage in, garbage out
That's a rather sweeping statement. Early gangsta rap had the redeeming value of being the first and only venue for frank discussion of a daily reality for a widespread urban underclass. Modern gangsta rap -- while I agree it is highly problematic in a lot of its messaging, and has some negative social effects -- is largely fantasy-based, or even an obvious exercise in absurdity (e.g. Odd Future) that is more harmlessly immature than it is socially destructive.
Besides, gangsta rap reached its pop-zenith with 50 Cent and has been on the decline ever since, with the pop rap image shifting far more towards Kanye-esque glam -- shallow perhaps, but barely distinguishable from the "rockstar" image that has been dominant for decades.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Genres
That the justice system is racially biased?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Garbage in, garbage out
Art doesn't need to have socially redeeming values to be art. Not even to be good art.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reminds me of how they convicted a woman for a murder that NEVER HAPPENED
But one problem, the murder never even happened! There was no murder to convict anyone for.
The way they convicted the woman of murder for a murder that didn't happen? Attack her character for things like getting a breast enlargement and starting to go out with and have sex with other men too soon after her husband died.
(the supposed murder weapon was arsenic poisoning, but even that didn't make sense because her husband died of a mysterious illness after 4 days of suddenly getting really sick. Arsenic kills much quicker then that. And most of the autopsies done on the husband didn't detect any arsenic, which wouldn't have been the case in a real arsenic poisoning)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reminds me of how they convicted a woman for a murder that NEVER HAPPENED
Here's one where a man spent 20 years in jail for a drive by shooting according to witnesses that later recanted their testimony.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/after-20-years-in-prison-man-set-free-after-witnesses- recant-testimony-in-murder/comments/page/1/
Or this man, convicted of child molestation by 5 witnesses who then spent 20 years in prison who later all recanted their testimony.
http://law.scu.edu/news/five-witnesses-recant-testimony-that-convicted-john-stoll-of-child -molestation/
These are court cases where there were witnesses. Not a case where just because this guy listens to rap or does rap which has far less evidence than he listens to that sort of music.
This prosecutor is on the same sort of witch hunt that led Aaron Swartz committing suicide. It's one thing to have the evidence, it's quite another on willing to use someone for your future fame just because s/he can fabricate a case.
By all means convict the guilty based on evidence but a witch hunt is quite another thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Garbage in, garbage out
I know that the norm today is to let all the garbage through because we might stifle somebody's expression. I prefer community standards. Communities are dying out, and communities have standards. Gangsta rap is an almost-community that we don't need. Of course, I have trouble with free speech for hate groups. That's not really another issue, because gangsta rap is about hate. And that is hearsay because I'm sure not going to torture myself with listening to the stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Should Rap Lyrics Be Admissable Evidence?
It depends - are the lyrics relevant? If they're confessional in nature, or contain details that only the perpetrator would know, then yes?
I love this site, but I'm getting tired of the "bat you over the head with absolutes" that seem to be the trend lately.
The question in the headline does not have a yes or no answer. The implication in the article is that since they are an "artistic expression" that the answer should tend towards no, but why do we need to make blanket statements like that?
Writing "I killed a man in a parking lot for looking at my girl in a bar" in a diary should not *automatically* have more or less weight than the writing the same line set to music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Garbage in, garbage out
That really undoes everything else you've said. I believe in community standards too, but they become dangerous when they are based on hearsay and judgements formed from cursory glances at things.
But really the problem is that by targeting "gangsta rap" as a whole you are ignoring a lot of nuance. There's many kinds of content there, even with the most brutally violent and mysoginistic lyrics. Sometimes it's confessional, sometimes it's satirical, sometimes it's done for shock value, sometimes it's intentionally absurd, sometimes it's just unimaginatively using established tropes, sometimes it's imaginatively using established tropes, and yes, sometimes it actually reaches the level of hate speech in that it actually is intended to incite violence, such as the gay-bashing dancehall anthems that have caused some countries to refuse entry to certain Caribbean artists.
But you're being blind to the degrees.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Should Rap Lyrics Be Admissable Evidence?
You'd have to be very careful then. If I write a rap song that has in the lyrics a murder that has Location A, Weapon B, Method C, Time D, Victim E (in other words, specifics), and a murder does happen that contains all of those, you would have to make sure that only I, the author of the rap, would know all of these details. If I were a famous rap artist and millions of people had heard y song...well then, plausible deniability.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Garbage in, garbage out
I have heard enough rap lyrics to write off the entire genre. I have seen other lyrics quoted in newspapers. I see the kind of lyrics mentioned in the article that were used as evidence. That's enough points outside of hearsay for me to establish a starting point.
By themselves, the lyrics should not establish guilt or innocence. But as context, I think they are very important.
But perhaps instead of focusing on the parts of my comments that you don't like, we could establish what our common ground is, if any. I'm not trying to change your mind. But I do have personal experience from growing up in a violent area about just what makes the dogs smell blood. And that remains, fo me, much more important than whether some "artiste" can throw around some terms that he wants to redefine. "I don't think that word means what you think it does."
When Mauricio Lasansky made his prints on Nazi atrocities (now on permanent exhibit at the University of Iowa), he didn't do it because he liked violence. He did it to expose the cruelty and inhumanity that arises from prejudice. It is quite easy to distinguish that from gangsta rap. The hard part is in those gray areas. But distinguishing the gray areas does not negate the responsibility to address the main principle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Garbage in, garbage out
I hate country should we censor that too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Garbage in, garbage out
How can you have a "standard" without first learning about degrees and deciding where to draw that line? Is your "standard" simply "gangsta rap" -- a term you haven't defined and couldn't define since you don't listen to the genre?
I have heard enough rap lyrics to write off the entire genre. I have seen other lyrics quoted in newspapers. I see the kind of lyrics mentioned in the article that were used as evidence. That's enough points outside of hearsay for me to establish a starting point.
Are we now into all rap, not just the already ill-defined "gangsta rap"? Rap just means rapid vocals that are predominantly rhythmic with little or no melody. It would be easy to pick lyrics to make the case that all "rock" is misogynistic too, I suppose.
But perhaps instead of focusing on the parts of my comments that you don't like, we could establish what our common ground is, if any. I'm not trying to change your mind. But I do have personal experience from growing up in a violent area about just what makes the dogs smell blood. And that remains, fo me, much more important than whether some "artiste" can throw around some terms that he wants to redefine. "I don't think that word means what you think it does."
I'm not sure we do have common ground... It's amazing to me that your words positively drip with condescension towards an art form you openly admit to having never experienced for yourself. You talk about "gray areas" and "main principles" but you haven't the faintest clue whether the few examples you've cherrypicked from newspapers and snippets of songs are one or the other.
There are people out there who think any and all depictions of violence are socially damaging -- some, I'm certain, who are offended by the Lasansky works for example and would argue that no matter their intent, any portrayal of those atrocities is negative. There are those who argue that war stories both true and fictional should not be shared since they romanticize and thus perpetrate war. There are huge groups that oppose any portrayal or even mention of any sexual act int he media. Those same groups often oppose any use of profanity and, even, any portrayal of activities that defy certain religious values -- all on the grounds that these things are damaging to society, and that the supposedly "obvious" negative effects they have on viewers trump any consideration of free speech. Such groups often target entertainers and eagerly catalogue their past creations to make a case that they are corrupt and morally bankrupt -- often with minimal context and highly selective quoting. In other words, the precise argument that you are making.
So, is this just a matter of drawing the line where you think it needs to be drawn? You don't think the gray areas are important to consider -- there are many others who would say you're too lenient and are considering them too much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Even if 100% of the population besides the artist hates it, that's still not valid grounds to declare something to not be artistic expression.
Nobody ever needed a heavily protected right to say, do or depict exactly what everybody likes, after all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In My Experience
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
But the rest of us don't have to put up with that crap. You shut your hole and go sit in the time-out corner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]