If dickheads confess to their depredations in their shitty "lyrics," why not use it against them in court?
How is it different from, "Dear diary: Today I robbed and beat an old Chinese man half to death because he looked at me sideways. It's good to be a gangster"?
The usual assholes are of course moaning about "racism" because evidently no white rapper has ever narrated his crimes in lyrics.
I don't see what this has to do with "state's rights."
The argument is that most art is not autobiographical. People don't write slasher movies because they're secretly serial killers; they do it because it's a popular genre that can be made on a budget, and they would argue that the same could be true of a defendant who might not actually be a criminal but just a poser trying to break into genre songwriting.
I am imagining a retard narrating an actual crime . . . I am reminded of the gangster who tattooed his murder of a rival gangster on his chest; the tattoo was used as evidence against him in court for the murder: https://archive.ph/mIU6p
The tattoo is stronger evidence than the lyrics mentioned in the article, in my opinion. The lyrics claim a general life of crime, but it's the prosecutor's job to establish not that the defendant is a murderer but that he committed this murder.
One of the lyrics used in the indictment is “Me and my crew striking out, striking in all black, send me the drop, we’ll kick in the house, if we steal a car we’re going to take off the tag.”
I don't think there's anything there to identify a specific incident, let alone proving insider knowledge of the crime. If those lyrics make him guilty of burglary and car theft, he's guilty of every burglary and car theft in the city.
If dickheads confess to their depredations in their shitty "lyrics," why not use it against them in court?
How is it different from, "Dear diary: Today I robbed and beat an old Chinese man half to death because he looked at me sideways. It's good to be a gangster"?
The usual assholes are of course moaning about "racism" because evidently no white rapper has ever narrated his crimes in lyrics.
I don't see what this has to do with "state's rights."
The argument is that most art is not autobiographical. People don't write slasher movies because they're secretly serial killers; they do it because it's a popular genre that can be made on a budget, and they would argue that the same could be true of a defendant who might not actually be a criminal but just a poser trying to break into genre songwriting.
I understand.
I am imagining a retard narrating an actual crime . . . I am reminded of the gangster who tattooed his murder of a rival gangster on his chest; the tattoo was used as evidence against him in court for the murder: https://archive.ph/mIU6p
The tattoo is stronger evidence than the lyrics mentioned in the article, in my opinion. The lyrics claim a general life of crime, but it's the prosecutor's job to establish not that the defendant is a murderer but that he committed this murder.
From the article:
I don't think there's anything there to identify a specific incident, let alone proving insider knowledge of the crime. If those lyrics make him guilty of burglary and car theft, he's guilty of every burglary and car theft in the city.
Reminds me of that South American journalist who was reporting on his own murders.