To Foul or Not To Foul? That shouldn't be a question.
Imagine in football: Late in the game, an offense is driving for the game-tying TD with 30 seconds left. Out trots the FG unit. Why? Because the defense used its perogative to force the offense kick a FG. It makes no sense.
I realize that the analogy isn't exact. Teams have been using the non-intentional, intentional foul since Dr. Naismith strung up the peach baskets to give themselves a chance if behind as the game winds down. But this doesn't limit the offense. Rather, it forces the offense to make a play and not sit.
Conversely, I think the non-intentional, intentional foul when up three at the end of the game is a perversion of the competition. Using the rules to limit your offensive opponent in an unnatural way.
To remedy the situation, I propose the 1-and-1-and-1: When leading by 3 with under, say, 10 seconds to go, any foul on the ball handler in three point range (or anywhere off the ball) would result in a 1-and-1-and-1 if the offense is in the bonus. Or a 2-and-1 if the offense is in the double bonus. The free throw shooter gets a third free-throw if he makes the first two.
I think this would force the defense to "play basketball" at the end of the game rather than engaging in a loop-hole/gimmick.