Moral Turpitude
The question of ethics and morality, what is the right thing to do vs. The wrong thing in a given situation, can be an extremely difficult one to answer. There are occasions where right and wrong are clear, black and white distinctions. In such scenarios, the right thing to do is easy discernible, though it may not be the easiest things to do. However, this is the rarest of occasions. Far more often than not trying to determine what is the right and wrong choice in a given situation is extremely difficult, if not wholly impossible. Usually the world is not divided into simple terms like good and bad, right or wrong, black or white. Sometimes in life a person will be encountered with the opportunity to make a choice. In most scenarios, it is the decision of the public majority that decides which action is right and which is wrong. Within the world of law, morality plays a major part because the legislation that is passed in a society tends to be based upon the accepted moral code. The community as a whole decides what is good or bad in law, in behavior, and in public manners which sometimes comes into conflict with individual autonomy and decision-making. This is a difficult aspect of the question of morality and legislation because poor behavior can negatively impact the other members of the population but the work that goes into preventing moral turpitude takes away the matter of personal choice which is particularly troublesome in a constitutional democracy wherein all citizens are promised liberty.
Moral turpitude is defined as conduct on the behalf of people that is considered contrary to the community's standards of justice, honesty, or good moral conduct. Crimes which are considered to contain moral turpitude are broken into three categories: crimes against property, crimes against a government, and crimes against a person or persons. The most widely accepted definition is as follows:
Moral turpitude refers generally to conduct which is inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general. Moral turpitude has been defined as an act which per se morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong, or malum in se, so it is the nature of the act itself and not the statutory prohibition of it which renders a crime one of moral turpitude (Crime 2013).
Therefore, anyone who chooses to commit actions which are against the legal or moral codes is guilty of moral turpitude.
Most often in the present time period, issues of moral turpitude appear in immigration laws. Crimes involving moral turpitude, also known as CIMTs, are used to determine whether or not an individual will be eligible for a visa to enter the United States (Crime 2013). This includes work visas or student visas and CIMTs are also taken into account in applications for permanent legal immigration. Additionally, those who commit such an action while in the United States may have their visas or citizenship status revoked by those in positions of authority.
Moral turpitude issues can appear in other section of the legal code as well, but they are considered by many to be anachronistic leftovers from a bygone era which should by rights be taken off of the books. In the present CIMTs are mainly used in criminal proceedings when a person is on the witness stand. If that witness has committed a crime in the past which deals with moral turpitude, then it is unlikely that their statements will have the same validity as someone who has not been convicted of such. There are other implications for people who have been convicted of CIMTs, even minor ones. For example, if a judge is convicted of a CIMT, he or she will be removed from the bench (California).
Beyond the United States, the issue of moral turpitude is...
In its perfect state, enforcing public order would, by its definition, secure and maintain the individual rights of its citizens. However, also by agreeing that another party has the right and responsibility to enforce public order, citizens give up some of their individual rights. By living in the United States, one has made a quasi-contractual agreement to abide by the laws that govern the country. As such, individuals have surrendered
Similarly, Green (2000) cites the reclassification of rape as a crime against the person as a good example of changing social views about acceptable behaviors and the consequences of unacceptable behaviors that involve violence. According to Green: For example, the fact that rape is now generally classified as a crime against the person rather than as a morals offense (as was once common) is indicative of the evolution in society's
Public School Prayer: Is it Constitutional and Moral? Proponents of allowing public school prayer cite both legal and moral reasons to allow prayer in public schools. On a legal basis they state that banning prayer in public schools is a violation of our First Amendment right of Free Exercise. From a moral standpoint they cite the so-called degeneration of the public school system and the so-called declining quality of public education
Morals of Criminal Justice Examine the moral requirements of criminal justice. In your analysis examine the issues of authority, power, and discretion. In addition, examine the role of individual behavior and how it reflects on institutional morality and how the code of conduct impacts individual behavior. Defend your answer with research. In criminal justice, ethics and morals determine the standard of fairness by enabling professionals to; i) develop the reasoning abilities and
Race, Class & Crime The confluence of race, class and crime is a hot topic nowadays. This is especially true when discussing events or topics of various types. Very or fairly specific examples of this would include the recent shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson, MO and the subsequent non-indictment of the officer who shot him despite the fact that Brown was not armed and the ongoing discussion about how paying
Crime and Violence: Cultural Beliefs and Biases Religion and Stereotyping Diverse sociocultural customs promote diverse forms of aggression; e.g., the conventional idea that males are authorized, by nature, to discipline or control females renders the latter susceptible to sexual abuse and spousal violence. Societal tolerance towards such hampers external intervention, preventing victims from protesting and seeking support. Sexual abuse reporting is also hampered by the stigma certain cultures attach to victims. Further,
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now