Project #93792 - The exclusionary rule - peer response post

Respond to Bryan Dodds and Vanessa Smith post individually. These posts require both the addition of new ideas and analysis. A particular point made by the classmate must be addressed and built upon by your analysis in order to move the conversation forward. Thus, the response post is a rigorous assignment that requires you to build upon initial posts to develop deeper and more thorough discussion of the ideas introduced in the initial posts. As such, reply posts that merely affirm, restate, or unprofessionally quarrel with the previous post(s) and fail to make a valuable, substantive contribution to the discussion will receive appropriate point deductions.

 

You must submit replies of 150–250 words for each response post.

 

 

Bryan Dodds

 

 

The exclusionary rule is possibly one of the most debated rules of criminal procedure. It states that evidence attained in violation of an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights is inadmissible in court. There are a few exceptions to the rule, however it is still hotly debated because it can lead to someone who is obviously a criminal not being convicted based on a rights violation. Professor Donald Dripps wrote an article titled “The Case for the Contingent Exclusionary Rule”, in which he argues that before the court deems evidence inadmissible based on a rights violation, they should first look at the steps being taken by the law enforcement agency responsible to punish the officer(s) involved to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

     If the disciplinary action being taken is deemed sufficient to remedy the problem, the evidence could still be used. Mr. Dripps makes the argument that this would serve a dual purpose of protecting the rights granted by the Constitution, while also ensuring that those who are obviously guilty can still be tried in court for their crimes. He also makes the point this would prevent officers from committing perjury for the sake of ensuring a criminal case doesn’t get thrown out.

     The argument posed by Mr. Dripps is compatible with restorative justice. Restorative justice places an emphasis on the damage caused to the victim of a crime, and making the offender pay recompense for any damage done (Fischer, 2015). If hypothetically, evidence of a crime was discovered in violation of the offenders Fourth Amendment right, Mr. Dripps model would serve the victim (if any) by ensuring that there was still a good chance the offender would be tried for their crime, which serves both the victim and society. In Proverbs 21:15 the Bible tells us that “when justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but brings terror to evildoers”.

 

References:

     Fischer, Dr. Kahlib. Biblical Principles of Criminal Justice and Government.

 

 

 

 

Vanessa Smith

 

In Donald Dripps research article “The Case for the Contingent Exclusionary Rule”, the author contends that “…courts should begin to experiment with suppression orders that are contingent on the failure of the police department to pay damages set by the court.”  If the courts where to put this concept of “contingent suppression” into place it would not be as effective as Dripps would like. With Dripps’ concept it appears he is expecting law enforcement to violate someone’s rights while enforcing the law, thus requiring the exclusionary rule to come into place in the court procedures. This concept would also not work since Dripps would have the damages set high in order to achieve deterrence from police officers violating rights of citizens. This would not personally affect the police officer though. The monetary damage would affect the people of the community who would have to pay higher taxes or more money to the department to compensate for the loss of money from the court case; it would not directly hit the wallets of the law enforcement officers themselves.

            The concepts of restorative justice found in Dr. Kahlib Fischer’s work and contingent suppression are also two terms that not work together well. In Restorative Justice: Changing the Paradigm by Griff Daniels he states that “Restorative justice concerns itself with ‘relationship’ and the repair of it when it has been harmed.” These two concepts would not work together because there is not a ‘relationship’ between the defendant and the police department-there is no emotional attachment to the case. As law enforcement officers you are taught to not take things personally, such as loosing court cases or being called names by suspects or citizens. In the Bible we are also taught to forgive those that wrong you. An example of this in the Bible is found in Luke 6:27 which says “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,” (English Standard Version).

            However, it is not a completely bad idea to bring the two terms together. To make the two terms work more cohesively together Dripps would have to find a way to impact the police officers on a personal level, instead of at a department level. This would allow the impact to really change the way the officer does his/her job by putting an emotional attachment to the contingent suppression and restorative justice.

 

 

References:

Daniels, G. (2013). Restorative Justice: Changing the Paradigm. 60(3), 302-315. doi:10.1177/0264550513493370

 

Dribs, D. (2001). The Case for the Contingent Exclusionary Rule. 38(1). Retrieved November 12, 2015.

 

Subject Law
Due By (Pacific Time) 11/16/2015 11:00 am
Report DMCA
TutorRating
pallavi

Chat Now!

out of 1971 reviews
More..
amosmm

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews
More..
PhyzKyd

Chat Now!

out of 1164 reviews
More..
rajdeep77

Chat Now!

out of 721 reviews
More..
sctys

Chat Now!

out of 1600 reviews
More..
sharadgreen

Chat Now!

out of 770 reviews
More..
topnotcher

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews
More..
XXXIAO

Chat Now!

out of 680 reviews
More..
All Rights Reserved. Copyright by AceMyHW.com - Copyright Policy