The case for the Contingent Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule prevents the justice system from using evidence which is gathered in violation of the constitution of the United States. Under the exclusionary rule, evidence gained from unlawful or unreasonable search violates the fourth amendment and thus cannot be used in a court of law. In the article “The Case for the Contingent Exclusionary Rule,” Donald Dripps discusses the debate surrounding the exclusionary rule. Whereas other parties align with the law, others consider the rule as a strain on the US justice system. Dripps, however, outlines a model of contingent suppression that is compatible with restorative justice.
The model of contingent suppression by Donald Dripps presents a constitutional remedy that aligns with the modern world as well as restorative justice. As stated earlier, the exclusionary rule rejects all evidence attained in violation of the fourth amendment, which protects people from unlawful searches and seizures. Therefore, law enforcers cannot search without a search warrant or probable cause. The model by Dripps suggests that the justice system should set damages and compensate instead of suppressing evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment (Dripps, 2001). Furthermore, the courts should be allowed to consider evidence obtained in breach if the disciplinary measures enacted by the law enforcers are sufficient. In line with Dripps (2001), such disciplinary actions would encourage honest fact-finding among the police and protect innocent victims.
Dripps model requires the police department to pay for the damages caused by violating constitutional rights. Although the fourth amendment should be upheld in the justice system, some breaches of the amendment are due to obliviousness as well as unusual instances. Therefore, some of the evidence gathered under such circumstances may be used to prove guilt in a court of law. However, since the evidence violates the constitution, the officers involved should be punished per the requirement. According to Dripps (2001), even the most conservative judges might jump at the chance to replace the despised exclusionary rule by imposing responsibility where it belongs- on the departments that fail to train and discipline their officers to comply with constitutional standards. When the police departments get punished for violating the law, they will uphold the constitution and seek facts using transparent and truthful means.
Restorative justice is aimed at rehabilitating offenders. Incarceration aims to reform offenders and prepare them to rejoin society after serving their sentences. However, restorative justice would only be effective if the offenders were convicted lawfully. Under restorative justice, incarceration rehabilitates offenders and helps them assume responsibilities for their offenses. Therefore, since the Dripps model helps law enforcers uphold the truth; offenders are convicted rightfully and assuming responsibility for their actions become more natural. Also, restorative justice repairs societal relations by involving all the stakeholders and improving the damaged relationships. The offenders take responsibilities for their criminal activities, and the law enforcers take responsibility for violating the constitution.
In conclusion, the model of contingent suppression by Dripps is applicable in the modern world and is also applicable to the restorative justice system. The model encourages fair fact-finding and fair interpretation of the constitution. Judges will be at liberty to turn down police testimony without necessarily freeing patently guilty offenders. Furthermore, police departments will be held responsible for the violation of the constitution. Therefore, the police will work tirelessly to uphold the law in investigations. The model will also enforce the restorative justice system by ensuring that all stakeholders take responsibility for their actions.
Reference
Dripps, D. (2001). The case for the contingent exclusionary rule. American Criminal Law.