Use proper etiquette in discussion. Quality as well as quantity counts. Present your own opinion on the assigned topic in a 300–500-word thread. Provide at least 1 reference and 1 Scripture in support of your thread. Discussion Board Grading Rubric Student: Criteria Points Possible Points Earned Instructor’s Comments Thread All key components of the Discussion Board Forum prompts are answered in a new thread that includes 1 reference and 1 scripture. 25 Major points are supported by the following: · Reading & Study materials · Good examples (pertinent, conceptual, or personal examples are acceptable) · Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, and comparing/contrasting concepts) 40 Proper spelling and grammar are used. 25 Required word count (300–500 words) is met. 10 Replies Required word count (150–250 words each) for 2 replies is met. 5 Major points are supported by the following: · Reading & Study materials · Good examples (pertinent, conceptual, or personal examples are acceptable) · Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, and comparing/contrasting concepts) 20 Appropriate “netiquette” manners are used (for example, no name-calling or labeling another student’s idea a derogatory term, such as “stupid” or “dumb,” even when disagreeing—see Student Expectations). 5 Proper spelling and grammar are used. 20 Total 150 1 day ago Eddie Duran DB Forum 2 Collapse Top of Form While the Fourth Amendment started off simple, in language, there have been “millions of pages of text- in the forms of case opinions, law review articles, and legal treaties” trying to interpret the words of the Fourth Amendment (Worrall, 2012, pg. 73-74). The Fourth Amendment protects persons, houses, papers, and effects and its foundation prohibits unreasonable search and seizures and prevents warrants from being issued without probable cause. As stated by Worrall (2012), the language in the Fourth Amendment is constantly evolving which is proven by the number of Supreme Court decisions throughout the years (pg.74). The exclusionary rule was not a part of the U.S. Constitution and was created by the U.S. Supreme Court. As we learned in Week 2, the exclusionary rule “requires that evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution cannot be used in a criminal trial to prove guilt” (Worrall, 2012, pg. 42) and as Donald Dripp (2001) notes, there are “few debates in American law are as sustained, or as biter, as the debate over the exclusionary rule” (pg. 1) In his article “the Case for the Contingent Exclusionary Rule”, Donald Dripps presents “constitutional remedies” and how “exclusions and damages might be combined to provide an effective yet politically sustainable remedy for constitutional violations” (pg. 2). The goal would be to set damages and compensate well instead of suppressing evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment which could deter those from violating constitutional rights. The courts would be allowed to consider the disciplinary actions taken by law enforcement and if it was sufficient, the evidence would be allowed. This remedy would “encourage honest fact-finding and fair interpretation of the Constitution” (Dripps, 2001, pg. 3). It would also deter police from committing perjury, inspire better police work, and improve police training. Dripps also asserts that by having an effective deterrent remedy, future innocent victims could be protected. I believe Dripps idea has some merit and could apply in real world application but it would be difficult. Dripps model seems to follow the words of Colossians 3:12-13 which says” Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive” (ESV). His theory would hold law enforcement officers accountable for their decisions on the scene and ensure that there is integrity in the process. It could still preserve evidence that while it may not have been seized legally, is still important to the case. But as much as I think Dripps model could work in the real world, there is still room for manipulation and abuse. While the model is to deter police and ensure that they do what is right, who is to say the judge imposing the amount of damages is completely honest and moral? Who is to determine what is the appropriate level of damages, each individual judge or do they have parameters based on the type of evidence, crime, and severity of the rights violated? Also, where would the damages go? Who gains to benefit the most? I also think there is a fine line of having police departments pay fines in order to keep evidence from being excluded which can give the appearance that a case can be bought. I believe Dripps model is compatible in restorative justice in that it requires police departments to pay for damages for violating someone’s constitutional rights, which is the premise for restorative justice by trying to repair harm, involving all stakeholders, and transforming the relationship between communities and governments (restorativejustice.org). The goal for any punishment to a crime is to deter a person from even committing it or committing it again and Dripps model tries to make that attempt. References Dripps, D. (2001). The case for the contingent exclusionary rule. The American Criminal Law Review, 38(1), 1-46. Worrall, John L. Criminal Procedure: From First Contact to Appeal. Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon, 2012. Print. "What Is Restorative Justice?" —. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Nov. 2014. http://www.restorativejustice.org/university-classroom/01introduction Bottom of Form 16 hours ago Kira Egbert DB2 Collapse Top of Form The constitutional criminal Procedure is set in regards to amendments of the constitution in which outline our rights at citizens. “Criminal Procedure is a set of rules and guidelines that describes how suspected and accused criminals are to be handled and processed by the Justice System” (Lab, 2016 pg 31). Mr. Dripps’s argument is compatible with the Criminal Process of restorative justice. Restorative justice is a system of criminal justice that focuses primarily on the rehabilitation of offenders through friendly relations with the offender’s victims as well as the community. The rule is in place in order to eliminate evidence, which was collected in violation to the constitution for a criminal trial in order to prove guilt. “Critics of the exclusionary rule routinely argue that it constitutes a loophole in the criminal justice process that allows guilty criminals to go free.” (Lab, 2016 pg.45) In the real world, Dripps argument would serve the victim while also serving society to a point. Dripps model seems to hold law enforcement officers accountable for their decisions at the point of arrest or being pulled over, ensure that there is integrity, and respect in the process. It would open various doors for relationships in the community but also leave room for manipulating responses and or abuse. In Proverbs 21:15 the Bible tells us “When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but brings terror to evildoers”. (Open Bible, n.d.) Dr. Kahlib Fischer’s presentation in Module/Week 1 is compatible with Dripps’ Model of “Contingent Suppression” with restorative justice due the relationship’s and restorative justice not being the same and or similar. Based upon Dr. Kahlib Fischer’s presentation, he had mentioned that it is not up to the government officials to build and repair relationships, it is those in the community that are responsible to rebuild and care for one another, that is not left in the hands of a government official. It is to reenact and restore social justice and help the needy as well as those who truly understand our placement. Word Count: 370 Works Cited Lab, S. P. (2016). Crime prevention: Approaches, practices, and evaluations (9th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Open Bible. (n.d.). Retrieved from Open Bible : https://www.openbible.info Bottom of Form
READ MORE >>
