Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Drill rap lyrics being used as evidence in court, because they plainly say what they did. It is evidence. California and Illinois are doing everything they can to protect criminals for votes. I don’t get it.
Not just California and Illinois I guess. It passed in NY State Senate and predicted to pass the Assembly.
In a way I don't disagree with him. Rap lyrics represent a form of creative expression rather than a document of criminal intent. You could probably apply the same interpretation to most if not all forms of art.
Anything to help criminals. It is the Democratic way. California voters deserve all of the danger and violence they have coming to them. I will reserve my pity for those stuck in California who don't vote Democrat but are still effected by their policies. Too bad they are not in a position to move.
Anything to help criminals. It is the Democratic way. California voters deserve all of the danger and violence they have coming to them. I will reserve my pity for those stuck in California who don't vote Democrat but are still effected by their policies. Too bad they are not in a position to move.
How is it a help to criminals? If the lyrics are not relevant to the case, they shouldn't be allowed as evidence. It's that simple. Just like the prosecutor can't use video of someone drunk at a party as evidence in a DUI case that occurs a month later. Evidence has to be relevant to the case at hand.
Although I doubt lyrics, movies, games, tv make a criminal the issue here is that a governor and legislature want to tell the court system and/or officers of the court how to do their job. I thought the justice system was supposed to be independent/the third branch of government.
Shouldn't the California AG be implementing this as a policy or practice?. The courts should take care of this and any other evidence that is considered prejudicial.
Last edited by anononcty; 10-01-2022 at 01:02 PM..
Okay Sooo..... If Rap lyrics cannot be used in a Court of Law does that also mean that movies and video games that inspire violence are also not allowed as evidence?
If some punk is playing Grand Theft Auto all day while listening to rap that denigrates women and promotes violence there can no longer be any connection to that IF that punk goes out, steals a car, beats up a prostitute and runs over a rival gang banger while shooting his gun in a drive by?
I guess this can also be extended to Porn or even Kiddie Porn. If some loser watches kiddie porn all day and then goes out and grabs a kid shouldn't his viewing habits be presented as evidence?
How is it a help to criminals? If the lyrics are not relevant to the case, they shouldn't be allowed as evidence. It's that simple. Just like the prosecutor can't use video of someone drunk at a party as evidence in a DUI case that occurs a month later. Evidence has to be relevant to the case at hand.
It’s my understanding it is relevant. Many are actual accounts of murders.
In a way I don't disagree with him. Rap lyrics represent a form of creative expression rather than a document of criminal intent. You could probably apply the same interpretation to most if not all forms of art.
Creative expression? You ever listen to that garbage?
It’s raunchy, violent, glorifies bangin *******, amongst other nasty crap.
Meanwhile, they went after metalheads in the 80’s for talking about suicide and the devil.
Rap is pure garbage. There is near zero positive influence in the lyrics.
I don't know why they need a law for this. For decades, these so-called experts have been telling us that song lyrics, violence on TV or in the movies don't have any effect on people. If that's true, there's no reason to think rap lyrics play a role in criminal acts, either. Geez, I wish they'd make up their darned minds. smh
Although I doubt lyrics, movies, games, tv make a criminal the issue here is that a governor and legislature want to tell the court system and/or officers of the court how to do their job. I thought the justice system was supposed to be independent/the third branch of government.
Shouldn't the California AG be implementing this as a policy or practice?. The courts should take care of this and any other evidence that is considered prejudicial.
I think most states have a code of criminal procedure that is developed by the legislature. The legislatures get to tell the other branches how they can enforce laws and what their jobs are. That's at the base. Courts can determine that certain specific evidence is prejudicial, or violates constitutional rights, but the legislatures get to set the overall rules.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
