FTA: “Using qualitative content analysis, we found that rap evidence was proffered in these cases in one or more of five distinct ways: (1) to prove gang affili

FTA: “Using qualitative content analysis, we found that rap evidence was proffered in these cases in one or more of five distinct ways: (1) to prove gang affiliation for sentencing enhancement purposes; (2) as circumstantial evidence of the commission of a crime; (3) as direct evidence of having communicated a threat; (4) to prove motive, knowledge, intent, identity, or character; or (5) to establish what incited the commission of a crime.” Later in the paper, the authors posit that a feature of the rap genre is to “blur” the distinction between fictional exploits (e.g. of committing crimes) and reality, and that defendants seem to not get the benefit of the doubt. > In spite of the creative license that many rappers take when crafting their songs, scholars have noted that the legal system has increasingly used rap lyrics as evidence as if the words were “truthful and autobiographical.” > ...While nobody believes that Bob Marley shot the sheriff or Johnny Cash shot a man in Reno, neither artist tried to convince the public that the crimes were real. There was no question about the distinction between artist and performer. Rappers, however, blur that distinction all the time. It's funny, and appropriate, that Johnny Cash is used as an example of how non-rap music is obviously meant to be fictional. While I never thought he "shot a man in Reno", I had always assumed he had some kind of less serious prison record. But Wikipedia says "he never served a prison sentence", though he did go to jail several times for misdemeanors. Country music has plenty of songs about lawlessness and debauchery; as prominent as the genre has been, it would be surprising, statistically speaking, if country lyrics were never used against the artist, in criminal or civil cases (e.g. divorce suits and songs about adultery). edit: added second excerpt