Just thinking about our jurisdiction system this form of manipulation is being used. Lyrics as evidence in a case, I deem stupid. When having lyrics as crucial evidence in the case raises the question is the prosecutor displaying a true representation of the defendant 's persona. My competitive side looks at this and sees lawyers playing cards of possible truth and stigmatism to win over the jury and deems this as a sneaky, smart move. Yet ethically this is sickening and disgusting to me.
I challenge the actuality that rap lyrics in any way can relate to a crime committed years after it was written. In court, rap lyrics are open to many objections. These lyrics are also open to calls of conclusion, assuming facts, not evidence, inflammatory, and calls for speculation. If any of these were to arise in a court against a white teenage boy I guarantee the judge would revoke this as valuable evidence. In the court of law to persuade someone to guilty or not guilty should only be based on facts and raps often do not have trustworthy facts of the crime. Even the article says that raps tend to be written years before the crime was committed. With this in mind, how is one supposed to persuade the jury? Unless playing against the stigmatism of a “gangster” and the dangers they oppose to our society using?
…show more content…
The authors towards the end also play on the persona (ethos) of who is most likely to use raps in court. Mentioning that studies have shown a black man who writes violent, sexual lyrics is more likely to be charged and found guilty of a crime. They also show that no one would believe that Johnny Cash shot a man but because of the persona of “gangsta” rap, lyrics written years before still hold more value than actual evidence. However, we are given more facts about how in the court of law this is used and how we should view this not so new creative manipulation in our