Donald Dripps Model On The Contingent Suppression Order

Donald Dripps model on The Contingent Suppression Order creating a “hybrid model” which combined the exclusionary rule and damages would only work in the real world if there was an accurate compensatory model that would be appropriate to each charge. According to Dripps model, “The judge is offering to rescind one, purely deterrent, remedy if and only if the government submits to another remedy that deters equally and compensates better. I can see absolutely no plausible argument that such a contingent suppression order exceeds the judge’s authority relative to the government.” (Dripp, 2001, pg. 23) Dripps supports his model by pointing out the areas in which a judge could vindicate the constitution without freeing the guilty. Therefore, Dripp proposal makes it clear that the

Dripp states that, “a billion dollars per violation would always opt for exclusion and at one dollar per violation the government would always opt for the damages.” (Dripp, 2001, pg. 25) The only way the Contingent Suppression Order could work is if the price was first figured out. A way to test this theory would be to establish the Contingent Suppression Order in small claims courts within different district regions. If the order proved to be successful, then policy makers could implement the same policies in higher levels such as state and federal courts.

Ultimately, the order supports a compensation retributive model in America’s court system. A similar spiritual comparison is stated in one of the most popular verses in the Christian faith. In John 3:16 it says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Due to our sinful nature, it was required for God to send his one and only son as a compensatory to relinquish us from our sin. The same method of requiring a compensation for the damage applies in Dripp’s