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.
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?
Imagine Newsom as President?
Exactly why he signed this legislation. Wants to appeal to a certain demographics nationwide.
Exactly why he signed this legislation. Wants to appeal to a certain demographics nationwide.
Ohhh, so maybe that's why he recently vetoed the Bill that would provide hygienic injection sites in cities. I figured that was a done deal but was very surprised when he shot it down. There are still a lot of us in this state that believe drugs are bad and don't want tax dollars going toward injection sites. That's just enabling them.
The evidence might be relevant in a sentencing hearing. What you say on Facebook that's not relevant to a specific case isn't admissible either, since it's not actual evidence of a crime.
If you say you are going to shoot up a school on FB and do it, you better believe it can and will be used against you.
If you say you are going to shoot up a school on FB and do it, you better believe it can and will be used against you.
That's not necessarily true. Each case is different. A judge may or may not allow that sort of evidence, depending on whether it's a specific threat, or something general. I would also presume in a school shooting, or other mass killing, there would be enough evidence to convict without the social media statements.
Keep in mind that the fact the evidence won't be admitted at trial doesn't mean it can't be used during the investigation to assist in finding a suspect.
This bill would require a court, in a criminal proceeding where a party seeks to admit as evidence a form of creative expression, to consider specified factors when balancing the probative value of that evidence against the substantial danger of undue prejudice. The bill would define "creative expression" as the expression or application of creativity or imagination in the production or arrangement of forms, sounds, words, movements, or symbols, as specified. The bill would require a court, in balancing the probative value of a creative expression against the substantial danger of undue prejudice, to first consider that the probative value of the creative expression for its literal truth is minimal unless that expression meets specified conditions. The bill would then require a court to consider that undue prejudice includes the possibility that the trier of fact will treat the creative expression as evidence of the defendant's propensity for violence or criminal disposition, as well as the possibility that the evidence will inject racial bias into the proceedings. The bill would require the court to consider, if proffered and relevant to the issues in the case, credible testimony on the genre of creative expression as to the context of the expression, research demonstrating that the introduction of a particular type of expression introduces racial bias into the proceedings, and evidence to rebut such research or testimony. The bill would require a court to determine the admissibility of a form of creative expression in a hearing outside the presence and hearing of the jury, and state on the record the court's ruling and reasoning therefor.
The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-in-Evidence, which requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified.
Because this bill may exclude from a criminal action a form of creative expression that would otherwise be admissible, it requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature.
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.
I figured that was a done deal but was very surprised when he shot it down. There are still a lot of us in this state that believe drugs are bad and don't want tax dollars going toward injection sites. That's just enabling them.
