Final answer:
The debate on corruption versus armed robbery involves the impact and perception of each crime, with corruption potentially being more subtly damaging to society than the immediate threat of armed robbery.
Step-by-step explanation:
The debate on whether corruption could be considered 'better' than armed robbery is complex and includes multiple facets of moral, ethical, and societal implications. While both actions are undeniably harmful and illegal, the argument might center on the impact and perception of each crime.
Corruption, often involving abuse of power for personal gain, can erode trust in institutions and hinder social and economic development, ultimately affecting large groups of people and the functioning of society.
On the other hand, armed robbery is a violent crime that poses an immediate and direct threat to individual victims, which can result in physical harm or even death.
In discussing the societal impact of these crimes, Plato's view on government could be mentioned, arguing that a non-corrupt government would secure true justice and serve the community.
Moreover, there's a need to consider the criminal justice system's response to suspects, as is the case with the police strategy to induce confessions in the scenario provided.
What complicates the debate further is the human tendency to engage in motivated reasoning, where one's prior beliefs lead them to accept evidence that aligns with their views and reject evidence to the contrary.
In summary, armed robbery is directly and immediately harmful and is a crime of opportunity, as Willie Sutton's famous quote illustrates. But in the grand scheme, corruption might be seen as more pervasive, subtly damaging society by undermining trust and equality before the law.