How Compatible, How Just Is the Contingency Exclusionary Rule?

Contingency Exclusionary Rule LAW AND JUSTICE Contingent Exclusionary Rule Dripps' Model in the Real World The Fourth Amendment of the American Constitution protects the individual from illegal searches and seizures by law enforcers (Dripps, 2001). This is at the heart of the Contingent Exclusionary Rule. But the lack of concrete explanation as to how this is to be implemented has led to continuous debates. One side has come up with numerous suggestions on how it should be implemented only to be opposed by the other side (Dipps).

The Rule states that any evidence obtained through illegal search or seizure is inadmissible as evidence in any court of law (Dipps, 2001). It is a time-honored guarantee, which gives an individual that sense of security against invasion of his privacy except when a warrant is produced. The law enforcer will also be liable for the act. Opponents argue, however, that most police officers do so out of an over-devotion to duty rather than the desire to frame the individual up.

Holding the police officer liable or punishing him for his zealousness, though mis-placed, can demoralize him. What usually happens is that such an officer is dealt with internally with some form of disciplinary measure. He thus need not be brought to court. The court will immediately dismiss a case if the primary evidence presented was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The individual can then sue the enforcement agency and demand for damages.

But if the officer proves that he merely chanced upon the evidence rather than intentionally sought and found it, the evidence may be become admissible (Dripps). Restorative Justice This concept or approach does away with harsh legalism in upholding justice by punishing the guilty (RJ, 2015). It considers not only the needs and rights of the victim and the culpability of the offender but also the effect of the offense on the community. Under this concept, the victim takes the initiative in looking beyond the narrow confines of retribution.

The offender is made to take full responsibility for his crime by sincerely repenting for it and atoning for it sufficiently. At the same time, he is provided with the opportunity to reform (RJ). The approach or concept is founded on the view that the crime is a violation committed against the community instead of the state (RJ, 2015). It enables a dialogue between the victim and the offender. It has been found to produce the highest satisfaction in rendering justice to the victim and accountability in the offender.

It not only becomes more compatible with Dipps' model.