When is noble-case corruption, such as the Dirty Harry problem, justifiable? Do you agree that law enforcement should use extreme means to catch criminals?
There is a very good website on this, but I am not allowed to post links. Try to access the webpage this way: google "noble-cause corruption justifiable" without quotes. It should be the second page. Good luck.
Good search terms!
http://www.google.com/search?q=noble-cause+corruption+justifiable&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7SUNA
Thank you for using the Jiskha Homework Help Forum. Hopefully, this is the site Michael wished to post for you:
1. (PDF file to download):
www.un-instraw.org/en/docs/Remittances/Remittances_RD_Eng....
2. (another):
www.pmmlaw.com/CM/Publications/00061310.pdf
The question of whether noble-cause corruption, like the Dirty Harry problem, is justifiable is a complex and controversial ethical issue. Noble-cause corruption refers to situations where law enforcement agents engage in unlawful or unethical behavior with the intention of achieving a greater good or upholding justice.
The Dirty Harry problem specifically refers to the hypothetical scenario where a law enforcement officer tortures or violates the rights of a suspect to obtain information that could potentially save innocent lives. The situation is often portrayed as a moral dilemma because it involves sacrificing one person's rights for the greater good of society.
While opinions on this matter may vary, it is important to note that the vast majority of legal systems and ethical frameworks condemn such behavior due to several reasons:
1. Legal and Moral Principles: Legal systems are built upon principles that emphasize the protection of fundamental human rights, the rule of law, and due process. Noble-cause corruption undermines these foundational principles by allowing law enforcement to act above the law and violate individual rights.
2. Slippery Slope: Allowing noble-cause corruption can create a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to a slippery slope where law enforcement agencies have the power to interpret what is considered a "noble cause" and take extreme measures in various situations. This can result in abuse of power, loss of public trust, and erosion of the justice system.
3. Effectiveness and Reliability: There is debate over the effectiveness and reliability of information obtained through extreme means such as torture. Studies and evidence suggest that coercive tactics often yield unreliable or false information, which can hinder the pursuit of justice rather than facilitate it.
4. Accountability and Oversight: Maintaining a transparent and accountable law enforcement system is essential to preventing abuse and maintaining public trust. Noble-cause corruption undermines the necessary checks and balances, making it difficult to hold law enforcement officers accountable for their actions.
It is worth noting that discussions on ethical dilemmas should be ongoing, as societal values and norms evolve over time. Some argue that in extreme and exceptional cases, where innocent lives are at immediate risk, noble-cause corruption might be justified. However, balancing individual rights and societal interests is a complex task, and alternative means of investigation and intelligence-gathering should be explored before resorting to extreme measures.
Ultimately, the decision on whether extreme means should be used to catch criminals is a societal and legal question that involves careful consideration of ethical principles, legal frameworks, and the potential consequences for justice and human rights.