In the context of real-time, the model proposed by Dripps would apply as a complement of the constitution as it would complement exclusionary changes with monetary compensation for a wrongful allegation. The exclusionary debate seeks to reverse the spellings of the fourth amendment that revokes any evidence that is acquired against the due course of the law. The application of Donald Dripps' model would involve the integration of the revocation of the evidence and settling of defamation or wrongful accusation damages done on the police (Dripps, 2001). The Donald Dripp model would apply with an assumption that constitutional violations done by police during the collecting of evidence resulted from accidental instances or due to police obliviousness. The application of Donald Dripp's model would serve for the best interest of the courts because it would ensure that police and lawyers would not bare evidence that could establish criminal justice. The exclusion rule will accord the law powers to utilize gathered evidence without the fear of breaching the fourth amendment. Dripps' model of "Contingent Suppression" does not blend with the notions of restorative justice. The justification for my argument is that the "Contingent Suppression" model emphasizes on the application of evidence gathered by police regardless of their sensitivity to the 4th amendment. The model does not reflect any credible notions of restorative justice because the latter emphasizes on rehabilitating the criminals. Restorative justice seeks to reconcile between the offender and the offended while the application of "Contingent Suppression" seeks justice for either the plaintiff or the defendant. The model would be revised to conform to restorative justice by including the reconciliation of the involved parties as part of the judicial process (Ferguson, 2019). Adjusting the Dripps' model to restorative justice would require reconciling the plaintiff and the accused to eliminate the notions of biased justice caused by the application of evidence whose acquisition violates the 4th amendment. The supportive scripture is John 8:1-11. The scriptures reads that Jesus intervened a scenario where a woman was almost stoned by a huge crowd led by the Pharisees on account that she had committed adultery. Jesus rebuked them saying that the case was not a sufficient to warrant stoning the woman since none of the crowd members and the Pharisees was holy. The scripture is relevant with the Dripps’ model because Jesus revoked the evidence provided by the Pharisees citing that it was not genuine and sufficient to warrant the stoning of a woman. Besides, Jesus applied restorative justice by advising the woman to reconcile with her husband.
References
Dripps, D. (2001). The case for the contingent exclusionary rule. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 38, 1.
Ferguson, A. G. (2019). The exclusionary rule in the age of blue data. Vand. L. Rev., 72, 561.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
