Noble_Cause_Corruption

Noble cause corruption is when the end may justify the means, even if the means were illegal. It is stated that many legal system players use this noble cause corruption to obtain warrants, and convict suspects that are perceived to be guilty. The question is in whose eyes are they guilty, and if the evidence or lack of evidence cannot legally obtain a warrant or conviction is it ok for the legal game players to lie to obtain the end they are seeking' I believe there are numerous scenarios where a noble cause corruption approach could be acceptable. If a child is abducted and one particular person is believed to have the child, however; there is no real evidence to prove it or to even obtain a warrant to search the suspects house, and the child’s life is in grave danger if an officer were to make up some evidence or eyewitness to the kidnapping just to obtain the warrant and the child’s life is spared based on that false evidence then so be it, to me then end would justify those means. In this particular scenario potentially when it comes to charging the man with the kidnapping the false evidence or eyewitness could be disproven as false and then the search warrant that was obtained based on that false evidence and everything found based on that search warrant could be inadmissible and therefore there would be no case against the kidnapper. Although, the child is still alive, the man would not serve any time for the kidnapping and will likely kidnap another child in the future and the end of that kidnapping may not end so pleasantly. A second scenario could be if a home is broken into and the residents of that home basically know who did it just cannot really prove it and they give the responding officers these names of who they believe broke into their home, and since there again is no real evidence to prove the home owners theory of who did it, the officers plant evidence or instruct the home owners to say they saw them break into their home. The end of this would justify the means if the people who the homeowners actual believe broke into their home, are actually the ones who did it. The problem with this is if it really was not the people the home owners believed it was that broke into their home, the real perpetrators would get away with the crime only to probably break into another home, and innocent people would more than likely be convicted of a crime they did not commit. Also if this situation ever came to light that these officers used this noble cause corruption, a lot of the cases that they were involved in would become under investigation and maybe a lot of convictions overturned when they actually had the proper suspects in custody. I can really see both sides of this situation, there would be certain situations where I would say that the ends would justify the means in that one particular case, however; in the long run could be potentially causing more harm than good. Also, at whose discretion is someone guilty' Once the officers and officers of the court start deciding who they believe to be guilty and innocent and physically planting evidence, omitting evidence, or creating false testimonies to convict who they believe to be guilty then our whole legal system will have a tough time getting convictions even when there is real evidence in play because the jurors will not believe that any of the evidence is real and that the legal system has just created more evidence to get their convictions.