DB Response: See attached. | Criminal

Research Requirement:

See attached. DiscussionAssignmentInstructions.docx CJUS 410 Discussion Assignment Instructions You will complete 4 Discussions in this course. You will post one thread of at least 300 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday day of the assigned Module: Week. You must then post 2 replies of at least 150 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Monday of the assigned Module: Week. For each thread, you must support your assertions with at least 1 scholarly citation in APA format and 1 biblical citation. Each reply must incorporate at least 1 scholarly citation in APA format. Any sources cited must have been published within the last five years. Acceptable sources include scholarly journals (not the textbook but should include the Bible, etc.). JustinFoxWK6.docx Justin Fox Dripps’ model of “contingent suppression” offers an alternative to the traditional exclusionary rule by allowing the use of evidence obtained from unconstitutional searches or seizures, provided the police department responsible compensates the defendant or faces institutional sanctions. Based on my current understanding of constitutional criminal procedure and the concepts in the Introduction to Criminal Procedure materials, I believe Dripps’ model could be effective in the real world, but only if strong oversight mechanisms and transparent administrative practices support it. The idea behind his model is to shift the burden of remedy from suppressing evidence, which may enable a guilty offender to evade justice, to imposing administrative penalties on law enforcement agencies that fail to meet constitutional standards. This approach theoretically maintains deterrence by holding police departments financially and institutionally accountable while avoiding the public criticism that often accompanies criminal cases dismissed on technical grounds (Dripps, 2001). In practice, however, the success of contingent suppression would rely heavily on the integrity of the agency conducting the review and its capacity to impose meaningful and consistent sanctions. Without independent auditing bodies or civilian oversight, there is a significant risk that the model could deteriorate into a system where violations are routinely overlooked through minimal internal discipline. As commentators have pointed out, alternative remedies to exclusion, such as civil liability or internal review, have historically been ineffective at deterring misconduct when left solely to police discretion (Kerr, 2018). Still, with appropriate structural safeguards, such as external review boards and mandated reporting requirements, Dripps’ model could potentially lessen the harsh consequences of exclusion while promoting compliance with constitutional norms. Regarding restorative justice, Dripps’ model does not inherently align with restorative principles, which emphasize healing, accountability, and the repair of harm among victims, offenders, and the broader community. Contingent suppression prioritizes institutional accountability over interpersonal restoration. To enhance its compatibility with restorative justice, departments could involve community input in oversight decisions, include victims in the process of determining appropriate sanctions, or create restorative conferences when constitutional violations lead to community distrust. Restorative models flourish when offenders and institutions acknowledge wrongdoing and make amends, reflecting the biblical principle that justice should arise from righteousness and accountability, as expressed in Micah 6:8, which instructs believers to “do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God.” In summary, Dripps’ model presents a compelling alternative but requires significant structural support to function effectively. Additionally, it would need deliberate adaptation to align more closely with restorative justice principles. CarolineNashWK6.docx Caroline Nash The exclusionary rule aims to prevent illegally obtained evidence from being used in court (Dripps, 2001). The problem with the exclusionary rule is the reluctance of judges, at both the trial and appellate levels, to apply it (Dripps, 2001). Judges must be provided with the option of damages, exclusion, or, in appropriate cases, both (Dripps, 2001). In real life, the exclusionary model involves the use of a contingent suppression order (Dripps, 2009). Judges can admit evidence rather than exclude it if action is taken against officers for misconduct (Dripps, 2009). Evidence can then only be suppressed if the measures taken were not corrective, creating a hybrid dynamic that implements deterrence while seeking the truth (Dripps, 2009). When action is not taken, evidence is suppressed as a result (Dripps, 2009). Dripps' model works in the real world because it avoids guilty people being set free due to a violation (Dripps, 2001). This model prevents misconduct in the future by enabling law enforcement to punish future violations (Dripps, 2001). The model also provides a space for holding officers accountable and for holding law enforcement agencies responsible for the misconduct their officers engage in (Dripps, 2001). Before this, the exclusionary rule was relied upon alone to discourage misconduct (Dripps, 2001). The debate over the exclusionary rule has gone on so long because important values support both sides (Dripps, 2001). The contingent exclusionary rule incorporates some of the strong points of both exclusion and damages (Dripps, 2001). A contingent suppression order bypasses both juries and legislatures, comes with a built-in measure of damages in the form of government indifference between exclusion and the damages, and gives judges the option of penalizing police misconduct without freeing the guilty (Dripps, 2001). This model would only work in the real world if there were an accurate compensatory model applied to each charge (2025). Dripps supports his model by pointing out the areas in which a judge could vindicate the Constitution without freeing the guilty (2025).  The only way the Contingent Suppression Order could work is if the price were first determined (2025). A way to test this theory would be to establish the Contingent Suppression Order in small-claims courts across different district regions (2025). If the order proved successful, policymakers could implement the same policies at higher levels, such as state and federal courts (2025). Dripps' model of contingent suppression is compatible with restorative justice, as both aim to repair harm and find resolutions. Evidence obtained through misconduct is suppressed if law enforcement fails to prevent it. They share a similar goal of holding people accountable. This model creates a bridge that connects restorative justice to contingent suppression, as the key goal is shared to give those who have evidence against them a voice and prevent harm in the future. 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 states, “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling[aLinks to an external site.] the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation” (2011). We must focus on reconciliation and the prevention of future harm, as God commanded.