Introduction
Noble cause corruption is an ethical dilemma in law enforcement that justifies the abuse of police power to attain desirable outcomes or achieve ‘a greater good.’ This form of corruption stems from a teleological ethical system, which emphasizes that the consequences overweigh the means of achieving a goal. Examples of noble cause corruption include abuse of authority or purposefully omitting established procedures, such as planting evidence, engaging in stop-and-frisk encounters, and exceeding professional responsibilities. If examined closely, noble cause corruption in policing does not yield tangible benefits for the community but rather exacerbates existing societal issues and fails to embody principles fundamental to the American justice system.
Teleological ethics
From a teleological perspective, noble cause corruption could be deemed beneficial as it aims to maximize the “positive consequences” for the greater number of people. In its essence, utilitarianism aims to boost the pleasure of the majority even if it inflicts pain on the minority (Sandel, 2010). Assuming this approach this effective, a follower of the utilitarian doctrine would argue that it is justified to indignify individuals for the ‘greater good of the community.’ In that understanding, it is worth sacrificing the few. However, employing a consequentialist approach to the proposed question poses several economic and moral objections.
The stop-and-frisk policy is an illustrative example of noble cause corruption in law enforcement. Although at its core the procedure is aimed to help the community, it is profoundly harmful if examined closely. Now deemed unconstitutional, the primary justification to stop and frisk individuals is to reduce crime by preventing it (Newberry, 2017). It stems from a disproved theory called ‘broken windows,’ which was introduced in the early 1980s by Kelling and Wilson.
According to this theory, addressing less severe offenses, such as misdemeanor or nuisance, can curb more serious crimes, such as robbery and murder. Kelling and Wilson explain this approach using an analogy, “If a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken” (as cited in Newberry, 2017, p. 20). By ‘fixing the windows,’ law enforcement officers should have prevented the spread of criminal activity.
From a practical standpoint, this approach is limited. Harassing individuals because they do not fit one’s perception of a law-abiding person is not only painful but it is also useless because the information obtained from duress is unreliable, thus yielding no greater good (Sandel, 2010). Additionally, statistical evidence shows that the efficacy of such a method is low. According to Newberry, 89.6% of hours spent on stop-and-frisk stops by the NYPD uniformed officers were arguably wasted because they did not result in an arrest (2017). Similarly, a 600% increase in the stop-and-frisk practice between 2002 and 2011 in New York City did not generate a proportionate decrease in crime (Newberry, 2017). Essentially, such an approach in policing is unethical for purely pragmatic, consequentialist reasons alone. It does not maximize the welfare of the majority because a high crime rate persists despite the efforts.
The policies based on faulty belief directly undermines the relationship between the police and the community. Policing the community instead of policing for the community enables distrust, reluctance, and even fear (Newberry, 2017). If a community is afraid to take action or cooperate with the police at the cost of being harassed, arrested, or even killed, it cannot work together to solve issues that contribute to minor crimes (Newberry, 2017). In other words, the members of the communities, particularly minorities, are prevented from reasserting their control because the fear of the police is greater than that of violence (Newberry, 2017). This tendency is deeply problematic because a community is caught between the crossfire of untrustworthy police officers and violent criminals.
Further implications
Deontological ethics dictate that all human beings deserve respect, regardless of their social status, and cannot be used as a means to achieve collective happiness. According to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, an action is morally justified not if it maximizes the collective welfare but if it accords to universal moral laws (Sandel, 2010). In his work Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant argues that morality of ends lies in respecting individuals and allowing them to act freely (Sandel, 2010). Therefore, noble cause corruption is unjust because it restricts the freedom and human dignity of individuals exposed to arguably biased judgment.
Noble cause corruption has a broader impact on society. Often, the approach adopted by the police provokes instances of discrimination, such as racial profiling, which in turn could enable more enrooting issues, such as state-sanctioned racism and a culture of police abuse. For example, since 2002, people of color, particularly Blacks and Hispanics, were more likely to get frisked and have force employed against them (Newberry, 2017).
However, according to cross-examination of data from the NYPD, Blacks and Hispanics accounted for 86% of the stop-and-frisk stops, but 88% of those stopped were innocent of the accusations posed (Newberry, 2017). In contrast to their white counterparts, Black and Hispanic individuals were five times more likely to be stopped, despite the same arrest numbers (Newberry, 2017). However, in roughly half of those cases, there was no valid reason for the stop.
This daunting trend illustrates the preponderance of singling out people of color to be treated with prejudice and often violence by the police, which in turn contributes to the distrust in the community and curbs communication. What is more, such an approach puts vulnerable minorities in danger by subjecting them to a lack of social protection. Minor individual altercations resulting from ‘nobly’ corrupted police officers ultimately lead to the entrenchment of bias against minorities, harming them in the long run. Those considerations make noble cause corruption in law enforcement unethical from both the deontological and teleological perspective. They are unethical because of their harmful effect and morally wrong incentives.
Conclusion
Noble cause corruption in law enforcement is unethical because it brings more harm than good to the community if examined by applying different ethical theories. From a utilitarian standpoint, actions directly resulting from police officers exercising their judgment beyond established legal procedures do not pay off. Such actions do not curb crime or result in more justified arrests, thus failing to make a community are safer place. From a deontological perspective, a deed is not ethical if diminishes individual’s dignity. Actions that stem from pursuing a nobler cause at the expense of disrespecting the few often disregard such considerations, thus making them unethical. Overall, although high-quality critical judgment is an essential quality for a police officer, they should carefully consider the consequences of their actions, even if they are well-intended.
References
Newberry, J. L. (2017). Racial profiling and the NYPD: The who, what, when, and why of stop and frisk. Springer.
Sandel, M.J. (2010). Justice: What’s the right thing to do?. Macmillan.