Ethics

Is it possible for a person to be good if he does bad things to achieve his noble objectives This is the question that confronts many police officers today.  Suppose a police officer testifies against a criminal offender who has a long record of violence that he has witnessed him murder the victim even if the allegation was false.  Is he a good cop or a bad cop The public is used to classifying police officers either as a good cop or as a bad cop.  However, very few understand the complexity of the value system being used by many police officers today.  In this case, the police officer knows that the criminal offender has a history of violence.  He has reason to believe that the criminal offender may have committed the murder since he has the motive and he does not have any solid alibi.  He also knows that testifying against the criminal offender will benefit the society since it will mean one less bad guy on the streets.  Yet, he did not actually see the murder.  But he makes the decision anyway to testify against the criminal offender and tell before the court that he saw the criminal offender kill the victim.

This act is known the corruption of the noble cause or the noble cause corruption.  It is said that Sir John Woodcock first used the term noble cause corruption in 1992 to explain how miscarriages of justice take place (John Allen, 2008, p.1).  John P. Crank and Michael A. Caldero (2000) defined noble cause corruption as a corruption committed in the name of good ends, corruption that happens when police officers care too much about their work. It is corruption committed in order to get the bad guys off the streetsthe corruption of police power, when officers do bad things because they believe that the outcomes will be good. It refers to any kind of acts which are done for the purpose of promoting the good of the public but at the expense of the criminal offender.  For instance, fabrication of evidence, tampering of evidence, and lying under oath are acts considered as noble cause corruption.

It is not a secret that there is a general attitude among many police officers towards engaging in noble cause corruption.  What makes these acts very threatening though is that noble cause corruption attracts not only the police officers who have history of corruption but even those type of police officers who have shown exemplary performance in serving the public.  Police officers who are responsible, authoritative and have high leadership skills may be drawn into committing these types of actions.

Moreover, noble cause corruption is dangerous because it justifies engaging in illegal conduct or activity (Josephine Pollock, 2010, p.268). It is dangerous because it confirms speculations that police officers will do whatever it takes to catch a bad guy.  It must however be stressed that whatever the motive or reason is behind the misconduct, the said act is still illegal and immoral.

There is a substantial similarity between noble-cause corruption and utilitarian means-ends thinking.  Utilitarian means-ends thinking is based on the Utilitarianism school of thought founded by Jeremy Bentham.  Utilitarianism refers to the value system that is based on the idea that all men want to get pleasure and to stay away from pain.  Under this philosophy, the morality of an action is measured in terms of its ability to achieve pleasure and to avoid pain.  In effect morality is dependent on whether the act promotes happiness or not.  Thus, only the end result of an action is given importance.

In the criminal justice system, Utilitarian means-ends thinking is shown when prosecutors withhold evidence that may help in the dismissal of the case against the accused.  Generally, the function of a prosecutor is to ensure that justice is served.  However, in the zeal of the prosecutors to ensure 100 conviction in all their cases, they are forced to resort to various devices and strategies that may sometimes thread the bounds of immorality and illegality.  For instance, prosecutors often withhold exculpatory evidence that may benefit the accused.  

It follows that the conduct of police officers who fabricate evidence or tamper with evidence for the purpose of placing a known criminal offender behind bars and the conduct of a prosecutor who withholds evidence are the same.  These actions rely on the end-result of the action.  If the action has the tendency to benefit the greater number of people (results), it follows that withholding of exculpatory evidence (means) is justified.  The action can be justified since placing a known criminal offender behind bars will benefit a greater number of people  that is pleasure.  On the other hand, only the criminal offender will have to experience pain of being imprisoned and separated from their family.  Fabricating evidence or tampering with evidence or withholding of exculpatory evidence is indeed justifiable under Utilitarian philosophy.

Consequently, there is similarity between noble cause corruption and Utilitarianism in the sense that they both have the same objective which is the pursuit of what the doer thinks is good for the interest of the majority or the greater number of people.  They apply the same principle in the sense they both sacrifice the interest of a few to protect the interest of the majority.

Conclusion
Nobel cause corruption and utilitarian means-ends thinking share the same philosophy  the ends justify the means.  However, the pitfall of both noble cause corruption and utilitarian means-ends thinking they both serve the interest only of the doer.  While they both pretend to be reflections of collective interest and the doer may claim that he engages in these actions merely to protect the interest of the majority indirectly the doer is also pursuing his own interest.  When these acts are continued as a matter of habit the distinction between collective interest and self-interest becomes vague which finally reveals that the real motive for the action is self-serving.  Justice can never be divisible.  The end will never justify the means.  No amount of rationalization and justification can replace respect for the law and the constitutional rights of the accused.