Defensive deterrent remedies are examined in two settings: the reversal of convictions because of discrimination in the selection of grand juries and the suppression of evidence under the exclusionary rule. The article argues that of the range of reasons for granting these remedies to criminal defendants, deterrence of future misconduct is the most persuasive. The article then considers whether deterrent remedies for constitutional violations by law enforcement personnel are an appropriate form of judicial lawmaking. The author argues that although suits for offensive deterrent remedies raise novel standing questions, there are persuasive reasons (drawn in part from analogies to the defensive context) to hold such suits to be justifiable. The article concludes with an examination of when it is appropriate to award offensive deterrent remedies, concluding that whether a deterrent remedy should be provided should be a context-specific question of remedial policy, whether the issue arises in a defensive or an offensive setting. 476 footnotes.