The term Noble Cause Corruption refers to a crime-fighting sub-culture that involves the law enforcement members being engaged in activities that would otherwise be considered criminal or unethical for the purposes of the greater good of bringing criminals to justice. It is an “end justifies the means” approach to crime-fighting that has been under a lot of debate as to its justifications (Pollock, 2011). One of the greatest challenges in implementing the Noble Cause Corruption crime-fighting technique has been the moral and ethical implications for the officers involved. The practice has often resulted in ethical dilemmas when officers have ended up deliberately carrying out crimes for selfish gains in the name of Noble Cause Corruption. This paper outlines typical circumstances under which Noble Cause Corruption would be acceptable in crime-fighting.
The first instance to be considered involves a known drug dealer and pedophile. The police or the person reporting this criminal may want more substantial evidence to secure a conviction. Therefore, the police may pose as possible drug buyers and approach the offender, seeking to make a purchase. Alternatively, a witness may be used as bait to catch the drug dealer. In this case, the bait is employing the Noble Cause Corruption approach in trapping the criminal. This is because he is breaking the legal law of buying illegal drugs from drug dealers. He is also committing a moral crime because the drug dealer will be harmed by being sent to prison. However, the end justifies the means because no personal ethical laws are broken by the bait (Crank, 1999). His actions are monitored, accounted for and done according to the rules or guidelines stipulated.
While the case above may have many loopholes, the pros justifying Noble Cause Corruption outweigh the cons. One argument would be; the harm done to the criminal, imprisonment, is justified as an inevitable end that would have still taken place by any other means (Crank, 1999). A more subtle case is whereby an armed robber breaks into someone’s house. He then asks the owner whether or not there is anyone else in the house. Since the owner knows, perhaps from the criminal’s public profile, that this criminal will kill his family, he decides to lie to the criminal and says there is no one in the house. While this example may not involve law enforcement officers, it presents better the moral dilemmas involved in Noble Cause Corruption. The owner of the house has committed a moral crime in lying, but it has harmed no one. It is therefore a justified means to achieving a better end.
In conclusion, the aforementioned two instances of Noble Cause Corruption have one characteristic in common; they are not air-tight. There is still a moral compromise that is being made. This means that Noble Cause Corruption is, in essence, a form of corruption. However, in law enforcement, it is essential that special training be provided to avoid developing a Noble Cause Corruption mindset in the law enforcement officers. Special training on in-service ethics ought to be provided and monitored regularly to maintain officer accountability and prevent them from straying from the stipulated boundaries. It is also essential that Noble Cause Corruption be made the last straw approach crime-fighting. It should only be employed after all other legal alternatives are exhausted. Any attempts in using the method when better alternatives are available should be considered a criminal act.
References
Crank, J. P. (1999). Police ethics: The corruption of noble cause. Scotch Plains, NJ: Anderson Publishing Co.
Pollock, J. M. (2011). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing