Art or Confession?: Evaluating Rap Lyrics as Evidence in Criminal Cases

Abstract

For decades, scholars have studied mechanisms that might explain racial disparities in the criminal justice system. One novel example of a practice that may contribute to continuing disparities is the introduction of defendant-authored rap lyrics as evidence in criminal trials. Across the United States, prosecutors are introducing rap lyrics as confession evidence to establish guilt. Concerns about this practice have been articulated by scholars and others but rarely empirically examined. This study begins to address this lacuna. In particular, this study examines how lyrics are evaluated when presented in a trial context and determines how individuals change their evaluations of the lyrics to support their verdict. Participants were tasked with evaluating evidence, including rap lyrics, independently and in the context of a trial and then rendering a verdict. Results indicate that rap lyrics are viewed as interdependent with other evidence when presented at trial. Furthermore, although evaluations of lyrics did not predict determinations of guilt, verdict affected whether the lyrics were evaluated as a confession, and this effect was stronger for participants who believed the defendant was guilty. These findings highlight how introducing rap lyrics might disproportionately advantage prosecutors and contribute to our understanding of racial disparities in the criminal justice system.