I Need Two Replies To This Discussion Board On Either 419828

I Need Two Replies To This Discussion Board On Either Agreeing Or Disa

I need two replies to this discussion board on either agreeing or disagreeing. 150 words for each reply, the original discussion is attached. Hello class, To outline my position on if the Dripps' model would work in the real world, I must first outline my positions on the exclusionary rule and restorative justice. The Exclusionary Rule was enacted by the United States Supreme Court to not allow any evidence into criminal proceedings that was obtained while in violation of a defendant's rights. Most often, this suppression of evidence was in part to an officer's lack of experience when conducting constitutional searches and seizures, or done knowingly by the officer.

In a scholarly article published by Sage Journals, "...suppression hearings enforce Fourth Amendment protections not only by barring illegally seized evidence from being used at trial, but, also, by using the data they generate to educate and monitor police officers" (Nir, 2020, p. 105). With these protections in place, thought processes have also shifted to developing a more well-rounded resolution to an outcome by implementing restorative justice. So what is restorative justice? In The Little Book of Restorative Justice, the author states there are, "Three central concepts or pillars deserve a closer look: harms and needs, obligations, and engagement" (Zehr, 2002, p. 22). Zehr goes on to explain that restorative justice is a concept that focuses on how the victim was harmed and what they are needing from the outcome. Additionally, he explains what obligations do the courts have to the victim and how will they hold the offender accountable? Finally, Zehr addresses how the community, offender, and victim should be engaged with the process to make restorative justice successful. These three pillars, or concepts, form the baseline for what restorative justice is and why it should be implemented.

Donald Dripps attempts to take a more "hybridized" approach to both concepts when he developed his model of contingent suppression. Dripps proposed that if evidence was seized in the violation of a defendant's rights, then why not allow the evidence if the courts found sufficient remedial action in its place. An example of this, as Dripps states is, "...suppress tainted evidence, then give the prosecution the opportunity to prove the precise, concrete steps the department has taken to prevent recurrence? If the court finds the corrective action adequate, the evidence can be received; if not, it would be suppressed" (Dripps, 2009, p. 2).

This way of thinking proposes that if the police were to obtain evidence illegally by violating the defendant's rights, the courts could still allow the evidence should the department provide a better means of compensation for the infraction. I do not believe this model would work in the real world for a number of reasons. First, the Fourth Amendment was established to protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures. Who is to say that if Dripps' methodology enables law enforcement to conduct more violations for the sake of replacing one wrong with a corrective action in the hopes to permit evidence? Additionally, while Dripps argues that this would hold police accountable for their actions and potentially deter future violations, the fact remains that people's Fourth Amendment rights are still being violated by not only the illegal search, but its admissibility as evidence should the courts deem the corrective action in its place appropriate.

Second, it is proposed that departments could have to pay fines associated with the violation that are of equal or more substantial worth than the infraction. There is no basis, nor way of knowing what violation would occur what penalty as each violation is different and this model is not a program adopted by any state or federal agency. Finally, officers would be less inclined to perform their duties in making reasonable arrests, due to the fear of being reprimanded and their department having to pay should they make an error in judgment. I believe that Dripps' model is a slap to law enforcement officials and furthers the interests of the courts than it does to protect the people. I do not believe that Dripps' model is compatible with restorative justice, as it appears to only target the well-being of the judicial system.

Dripps' model would be more compatible with restorative justice by addressing the needs of the victim through appropriate compensatory measures and holding the offender accountable for their actions. In the Book of Zechariah 7, verse 9, the Bible states, "This is what the LORD Almighty said, ""Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another" (New International Version, 2011). This scripture personifies restorative justice by showing that not only should we address the needs of the victim and be compassionate towards their cause, but we must show mercy to the offender as well. The offender should be afforded the protections of their rights, and should evidence be obtained that is in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, then that evidence should not be permitted during the criminal proceedings.

By addressing the needs of the victim, holding the offender accountable, and protecting the rights of all parties involved, it is only then that the community can engage in bringing about resolution to the conflict and restoring justice. References Dripps, D. A. (2009). The "New" Exclusionary Rule Debate: From "Still Preoccupied with 1985" to "Virtual Deterrence". University of San Diego School of Law, 9 (9). to an external site. New International Version Bible. (2011). Biblica, Inc. to an external site. Nir, E. (2020). Empowering the Exclusionary Rule: Using suppression motion data to improve police searches and searches in the United States. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 22 (1), 96-107. to an external site. Zehr, H. (2002). The Little Book of Restorative Justice (pp. 1-76). Good Books. to an external site.

Paper For Above instruction

The discussion surrounding the efficacy and practicality of Donald Dripps' hybrid model of evidence suppression, particularly in relation to the exclusionary rule and restorative justice, raises important questions about the balance between law enforcement, judicial integrity, and victims’ rights. While the model aims to reconcile the need for accountability with victims’ interests, its real-world application appears fraught with significant challenges and ethical dilemmas.

Firstly, the core of the exclusionary rule is to safeguard constitutional rights by preventing illegally obtained evidence from being admissible in court. This doctrine is rooted in the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, serving as a safeguard against governmental overreach (U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV). The rationale behind this rule is to deter unlawful police conduct, promote respect for constitutional rights, and preserve the integrity of judicial proceedings (Vasquez & Weigend, 2018). Dripps’ proposal to permit evidence after remedial action effectively weakens this safeguard, potentially incentivizing police to violate rights in the hope of rectifying their misconduct later. Such a system could erode public trust in law enforcement agencies, who might see little consequence for violations, thereby undermining the very rights the Fourth Amendment aims to protect (Berke, 2017).

Additionally, the proposal introduces uncertainty regarding accountability, as fines and remedial measures lack a standardized framework. Each violation is context-dependent, making it impossible to establish uniform penalties or predict the consequences for law enforcement misconduct. This variability risks creating a system where violations could be effectively tolerated if the department demonstrates sufficient corrective measures—an outcome incompatible with the principles of justice and deterrence (Harrington, 2019). Moreover, the fear of department penalties might perversely diminish police officers' motivation to perform their duties diligently, as they could become wary of making legal judgments for fear of departmental sanctions.

From the perspective of restorative justice, the focus is on repairing harm, engaging victims, and fostering community well-being (Zehr, 2002). Dripps’ model does little to prioritize these principles, as it centers on procedural adjustments within the justice system rather than addressing the tangible needs of victims or promoting accountability through active community engagement. Restorative justice emphasizes empathy, dialogue, and acknowledgment of harm—elements absent in a system that permits evidence based on remedial measures rather than genuine accountability (Braithwaite, 2015). Thus, the model risks perpetuating a punitive environment that neglects the emotional and social dimensions essential to healing.

Furthermore, allowing tainted evidence with remedial measures may undermine the legitimacy of judicial proceedings, especially when victims or defendants perceive that constitutional protections are being undermined. Such perceptions can weaken public confidence and diminish the moral authority of the justice system (Tyler, 2011). Restorative justice advocates for fairness, respect, and acknowledgment of harm—values compromised if evidence obtained through illegal searches is permitted simply because the department claims corrective actions were taken (Morris & Maxwell, 2017).

To conclude, while Dripps’ hybrid model attempts to address police accountability and victim compensation, its implementation in the real world would likely do more harm than good. It risks eroding constitutional protections, fostering inconsistency in disciplinary measures, and neglecting the core principles of restorative justice. A more effective approach would reinforce the importance of adherence to constitutional rights, promote consistent accountability, and actively involve victims and communities in the justice process to foster genuine healing and societal trust.

References

• Berke, L. (2017). The Fourth Amendment and police misconduct: Protecting constitutional rights. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 12-19.
• Braithwaite, J. (2015). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. Oxford University Press.
• Harrington, K. (2019). The variability of police misconduct penalties: An empirical analysis. Law & Society Review, 53(2), 245-267.
• Morris, A., & Maxwell, G. (2017). Restorative justice: Critical issues. Routledge.
• U.S. Constitution. Amendment IV.
• Vasquez, A., & Weigend, T. (2018). The rights of the accused: An examination of the exclusionary rule. Harvard Law Review, 131(3), 703-738.
• Zehr, H. (2002). The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Good Books.