Moral turpitude

Last updated

Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States, and until 1976 in Canada, that refers to "an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community". [1] This term appears in U.S. immigration law beginning in the 19th century. [2] Moral turpitude laws typically deal with legal, judicial, and business related transgressions. Moral turpitude laws should not be confused with laws regarding social morality, violations of which are more commonly called public order, morality, decency, and/or vice crimes.

Contents

The California Supreme Court described "moral turpitude" as an "act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man." [3]

The classification of a crime or other conduct as constituting moral turpitude has significance in several areas of law. First, a prior conviction of a crime of moral turpitude (or in some jurisdictions, "moral turpitude conduct", even without a conviction) is considered to have a bearing on the honesty of a witness and might be used for purposes of the impeachment of witnesses. [4]

Second, offenses involving moral turpitude may be grounds to deny or revoke state professional licenses such as teaching credentials, applications for public notary, [5] licenses to practice law, [6] or other licensed professions.

Third, the concept is relevant in contract law since employment contracts and sponsorship agreements often contain a moral turpitude clause , which allows the sponsor to terminate a contract without penalty if the employee or sponsored party commits an act of moral turpitude. What sort of acts constitute "moral turpitude" can vary greatly depending on the situation and the exact terms of the contract, but the clause is often invoked in cases involving clearly non-criminal behavior and/or allegations for which there is insufficient evidence for a conviction (assuming the alleged act is even a criminal offense).[ citation needed ]

Fourth, this concept is of great importance for immigration purposes in the United States, Canada (prior to 1976), and some other countries, since offenses defined as instances of moral turpitude are considered bars to immigration into the United States. [7]

Fifth, some jurisdictions may deny or revoke liquor licenses or other similar licenses for moral turpitude. [8]

American immigration law

A conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) causes a person to be inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(2)(a)(i) of the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act). There are petty offense exceptions to this rule, but these exceptions do not change the meaning of the question on the Visa Waiver Program or on the visa application form, and cannot be self-certified. A controlled substance violation causes the alien to be inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(2)(i)(II) of the INA. They are two different sections of the law. A controlled substance violation is a CIMT. The immigration administrative proceeding does not use a controlled substance violation as a CIMT. A visa waiver program applicant admissibility is determined at the port of entry and they are subject to section 212(a) and 217 of the INA. [9]

Visa Waiver Program

The second question on document I-94W for those visiting the U.S. on the Visa Waiver Program asks:

Have you ever been arrested or convicted for an offense or crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to a controlled substance; or been arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years or more; or been controlled substance trafficker; or are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?

Little guidance is provided to the traveler as to which offenses are included in the definition. However, the Web site of the U.S. embassy in London states that:

Travelers who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, those with criminal records, (the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to U.S. visa law), certain serious communicable illnesses, those who have been refused admission into, or have been deported from, the United States, or have previously overstayed on the VWP are not eligible to travel visa-free under the Visa Waiver Program. [10]

This appears to be at variance with the question on form I-94W and information supplied by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, as there are many offenses that are not considered to involve moral turpitude.

U.S. government guidance on determining moral turpitude

A definition of moral turpitude is available for immigration purposes from the Foreign Affairs Manual, available on the U.S. Department of State website. [11] and the U.S. Government Publishing Office website (8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(A)(i)). [12]

For offenses (or arrests on suspicion of such offenses) occurring outside the U.S., the locally defined offense must be considered against the U.S. definitions, and in such cases, it is the definition of the offense (as defined in the appropriate country) which is considered for immigration purposes, and not the circumstances of the individual's actual case. [13]

Whether a state law offense constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude for federal immigration purposes is decided on a statute by statute basis, because each state statute might cover a different range of behaviors, some of which may not necessarily involve moral turpitude under the Federal definition. For an example of a criminal statute that seems like it would categorically involve moral turpitude, but actually does not because the statute covers some behavior that does not involve moral turpitude, see the Ninth Circuit case Castrijon-Garcia v. Holder, No. 09-73756 (9th Cir. 2013) (simple kidnapping under California Penal Code § 207(a) is not a categorical crime involving moral turpitude). [14] From Pereida v. Wilkinson (2021), the onus is on the immigrant to show that a crime is not one of moral turpitude if they are seeking action under immigration policies. [15]

CategoryCrimes involving moral turpitudeCrimes not involving moral turpitude
Crimes Against Property Fraud:
  • Making false representation
  • Knowledge of such false representation by the perpetrator
  • Reliance on the false representation by the person defrauded
  • An intent to defraud
  • The actual act of committing fraud

Evil intent:

  • Damaging private property (where intent to damage not required)
  • Breaking and entering (requiring no specific or implicit intent to commit a crime involving moral turpitude)
  • Passing bad checks (where intent to defraud not required)
  • Possessing stolen property (if guilty knowledge is not essential)
  • Joy riding (where the intention to take permanently not required)
  • Juvenile delinquency
  • Trespassing
Crimes Committed Against Governmental Authority
Crimes Committed Against Person, Family Relationship, and Sexual Morality
  • Abandonment of a minor child (if willful and resulting in the destitution of the child)
  • Adultery (see INA 101** repealed by Public Law 97-116)
  • Assault (this crime is broken down into several categories, which involve moral turpitude):
    • Assault with intent to kill, commit rape, commit robbery or commit serious bodily harm
    • Assault with a dangerous or deadly weapon
  • Bigamy
  • Paternity fraud
  • Contributing to the delinquency of a minor (where sexual)
  • Gross indecency
  • Incest (if the result of an improper sexual relationship)
  • Kidnapping
  • Lewdness
  • Manslaughter:
    • Voluntary
    • Involuntary (where the statute requires proof of recklessness, which is defined as the awareness and conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustified risk which constitutes a gross deviation from the standard that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. A conviction for the statutory offense of vehicular homicide or other involuntary manslaughter requires only a showing of negligence will not involve moral turpitude even if it appears the defendant in fact acted recklessly)
  • Mayhem
  • Murder
  • Pandering
  • Prostitution
  • Rape (including "Statutory rape" by virtue of the victim's age)
  • Assault (simple) (any assault, which does not require an evil intent or depraved motive, although it may involve the use of a weapon, which is neither dangerous nor deadly)
  • Bastardy (the offense of begetting a bastard child)
  • Creating or maintaining a nuisance (where knowledge that premises were used for prostitution is not necessary)
  • Incest (when a result of a marital status prohibited by law)
  • Involuntary manslaughter (when killing is not the result of recklessness)
  • Libel
  • Failure to register as a sex offender [16]
  • Mailing an obscene letter
  • Mann Act violations (where coercion is not present)
  • Riot
  • Sexual harassment
  • Suicide (attempted)
Attempts, Aiding and Abetting, Accessories and Conspiracy
  • An attempt to commit a crime deemed to involve moral turpitude
  • Aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime deemed to involve moral turpitude
  • Being an accessory (before or after the fact) in the commission of a crime deemed to involve moral turpitude
  • Taking part in a conspiracy (or attempting to take part in a conspiracy) to commit a crime involving moral turpitude where the attempted crime would itself constitute moral turpitude.

N/A

From the United States Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual [11]

American Bar and DUI

An arrest or conviction for a Driving Under the Influence is not necessarily a reason to deny entry to law school or the bar. However, honesty during applications to law school or to sit for the bar is important since it speaks to the character of the applicant. In the eyes of many admissions committees, covering up a past criminal activity is a more serious offense than the crime itself. [17]

While every state is different, most states treat repeat issues involving substance use as evidence of moral turpitude.[ citation needed ] Substance use, in general, is a serious problem within the legal profession, and substance use affects lawyers at nearly twice the rate of the general population. [18] In a high percentage of cases where a lawyer was suspended or disbarred, they were struggling with substance use. [19]

In 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court refused to allow two law school graduates to take the state bar exam, partly because they did not reveal their entire criminal histories on their law school applications. John Payne, 57, disclosed all of his criminal history to the state bar, but he did not tell Southern Illinois University about some of his drunken driving history. He had six DUI convictions, as well as other felony and misdemeanor convictions, spanning from his youth to his mid-40s. [20] Roy Yunker Jr., 40, failed to disclose the various DUI offenses to both John Marshall Law School, where he earned his J.D., and to the Georgia State Bar. [20]

American state voting laws

Some US states, including Georgia and Alabama, have or had laws on the books preventing convicted felons from voting if their crime involved moral turpitude. In at least one case, such a law was struck down by the US Supreme Court as having its roots in Reconstruction era white supremacy. [21] However, voting laws involving moral turpitude remain on the books in both Georgia and Alabama. The definition of moral turpitude has varied in different states and at different times. In Georgia, all felonies are considered to be crimes involving moral turpitude. In Alabama, this was also formerly the case, but in 2017 the restriction was relaxed sufficiently that some felonies, such as drug possession, are no longer considered to involve moral turpitude. [22]

See also

Related Research Articles

Malum prohibitum is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.

Vehicular homicide is a crime that involves the death of a person other than the driver as a result of either criminally negligent or murderous operation of a motor vehicle.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952</span> American immigration law

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, codified under Title 8 of the United States Code, governs immigration to and citizenship in the United States. It came into effect on June 27, 1952. The legislation consolidated various immigration laws into a single text. Officially titled the Immigration and Nationality Act, it is often referred to as the 1952 law to distinguish it from the 1965 legislation. This law increased the quota for Europeans outside Northern and Western Europe, gave the Department of State authority to reject entries affecting native wages, eliminated 1880s bans on contract labor, set a minimum quota of one hundred visas per country, and promoted family reunification by exempting citizens' children and spouses from numerical caps.

An Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility is an application for legal entry to the United States made by an individual who is otherwise inadmissible on one or more grounds. The application is submitted to the consular office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office or immigration court considering the immigrant visa or adjustment of status application.

A K-1 visa is a visa issued to the fiancé or fiancée of a United States citizen to enter the United States. A K-1 visa requires a foreigner to marry his or her U.S. citizen petitioner within 90 days of entry, or depart the United States. Once the couple marries, the foreign citizen can adjust status to become a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Although a K-1 visa is legally classified as a non-immigrant visa, it usually leads to important immigration benefits and is therefore often processed by the Immigrant Visa section of United States embassies and consulates worldwide.

Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004), held that aliens may not be deported after being convicted of DUI if the DUI statute that defines the offense does not contain a mens rea element or otherwise allows a conviction for merely negligent conduct.

Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 (2006), held that an "aggravated felony" includes only conduct punishable as a felony under the federal Controlled Substances Act, regardless of whether state law classifies such conduct as a felony or a misdemeanor. Under federal law, there are two main consequences of having a prior conviction for an "aggravated felony." One is that, if the convicted person is an alien, he will be deported. The other is that, with respect to certain federal crimes, a prior conviction for an aggravated felony provides a sentencing enhancement. In this case, Lopez had been convicted of conduct that was a felony under South Dakota law but was a misdemeanor under federal law. Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this conviction could not serve as a basis for deporting him.

The term aggravated felony was used in the United States immigration law to refer to a broad category of criminal offenses that carry certain severe consequences for aliens seeking asylum, legal permanent resident status, citizenship, or avoidance of deportation proceedings. Anyone convicted of an aggravated felony and removed from the United States "must remain outside of the United States for twenty consecutive years from the deportation date before he or she is eligible to re-enter the United States." The supreme court ruled 5-4 in Sessions v. Dimaya that the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague limiting the term.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case involving habeas corpus and INA § 212(c) relief for deportable aliens.

The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005, or IMBRA, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1375a(d), is a United States federal statute that requires background checks for all marriage visa sponsors and limits serial visa applications. Additionally, the law requires background checks for US citizens using marriage brokerage services focused primarily on providing dating services between US citizens or residents and foreign nationals for a fee. The impetus for its introduction were the Susanna Blackwell case in 1995 and the Anastasia King case in 2000, in which foreign women had been abused and murdered by men who had used a K-1 fiancée visa issued by the U.S. State Department to bring them to the United States. In the King case, the husband had physically abused a previous foreign bride before murdering Anastasia. King had met Anastasia through his own advertisement in a Moscow newspaper. In the Blackwell case, the husband had a clean record, therefore IMBRA would not have prevented her murder. It was intended to stop abuse of mail order brides by prospective husbands with criminal histories. IMBRA met with opposition from international dating companies when it was first introduced. Some industry executives claim the industry has grown to appreciate it to ensure the safety of its female clients.

Good moral character is an ideal state of a person's beliefs and values that is considered most beneficial to society.

A terroristic threat is a threat to commit a crime of violence or a threat to cause bodily injury to another person and terrorization as the result of the proscribed conduct. Several U.S. states have enacted statutes which impose criminal liability for "terroristic threatening" or "making a terroristic threat."

A deferred adjudication, also known in some jurisdictions as an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACOD), probation before judgment (PBJ), or deferred entry of judgment (DEJ), is a form of plea deal available in various jurisdictions, where a defendant pleads "guilty" or "no contest" to criminal charges in exchange for meeting certain requirements laid out by the court within an allotted period of time also ordered by the court. Upon completion of the requirements, which may include probation, treatment, community service, some form of community supervision, or some other diversion program, the defendant may avoid a formal conviction on their record or have their case dismissed. In some cases, an order of non-disclosure can be obtained, and sometimes a record can be expunged.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Travel Act</span>

The Travel Act or International Travel Act of 1961, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, is a Federal criminal statute which forbids the use of the U.S. mail, or interstate or foreign travel, for the purpose of engaging in certain specified criminal acts.

The U visa is a United States nonimmigrant visa which is set aside for victims of crimes who have suffered substantial mental or physical abuse while in the U.S. and who are willing to assist law enforcement and government officials in the investigation or prosecution of the criminal activity. It permits such victims to enter or remain in the US when they might not otherwise be able to do so. An advantage that comes along with the acceptance of a U-visa is the individual will have deportation protection which is important when they are collaborating with law enforcement.

Luna Torres v. Lynch, 578 U.S. 452 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided the interpretation of section 1101(a)(43) of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which includes "aggravated felony" as a possible reason for deporting a non-citizen. The INA specifies certain offenses described in the federal criminal code as qualifying as an aggravated felony. The question before the court was if the plaintiff Jorge Luna Torres, who had been convicted under a state arson statute mostly identical to the federal statute but lacking an interstate or foreign commerce element in the federal law, fell under this definition of aggravated felony. The Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit original decision: the difference was merely "jurisdictional", and Torres still qualified for the accelerated deportation process described under the INA.

Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8–0 that in the context of statutory rape offenses that criminalize sexual intercourse based solely on the ages of the participants, the generic federal definition of "sexual abuse of a minor" requires the age of the victim to be less than 16. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis and impaired driving</span> Overview of the relationship between the use of Cannabis and impaired driving ability

Two main questions arise in the law surrounding driving after having ingested cannabis: (1) whether cannabis actually impairs driving ability, and (2) whether the common practice of testing for THC is a reliable means to measure impairment. On the first question, studies are mixed. Several recent, extensive studies–including one conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and one conducted by the American Automobile Association (AAA)–show that drivers with detectable THC in their blood are no more likely to cause car crashes than drivers with no amount of THC in their blood. Others show that cannabis can impair certain abilities important to safe driving –but no studies have been able to show that this increases the actual risk of crashing, or that drivers with THC in their blood cause a disproportionate number of crashes. On the second question, the studies that have been conducted so far have consistently found that THC blood levels and degree of impairment are not closely related. No known relationship between blood levels of THC and increased relative crash risk, or THC blood levels and level of driving impairment, has been shown by single-crash or classic-control studies. Thus, even though it is possible that cannabis impairs driving ability to some extent, there are currently no reliable means to test or measure whether a driver was actually impaired.

Pereida v. Wilkinson, 592 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) an alien seeking to cancel a lawful removal order bears the burden of showing that he has not been convicted of a disqualifying offense. An alien has not carried that burden when the record shows he has been convicted under a statute limiting multiple offenses, some of which are disqualifying, and the record is ambiguous as to which crime formed the basis of his conviction.

The California Racial Justice Act of 2020 bars the state from seeking or securing a criminal conviction or imposing a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin. The Act, in part, allows a person to challenge their criminal case if there are statistical disparities in how people of different races are either charged, convicted or sentenced of crimes. The Act counters the effect of the widely criticized 1987 Supreme Court decision in McClesky v. Kemp, which rejected the use of statistical disparities in the application of the death penalty to prove the kind of intentional discrimination required for a constitutional violation. The Act, however, goes beyond countering McClesky to also allow a defendant to challenge their charge, conviction or sentence if a judge, attorney, law enforcement officer, expert witness, or juror exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin or if one of those same actors used racially discriminatory language during the trial. The CRJA only applies prospectively to cases sentenced after January 1, 2021. The Act is codified in Sections 745, 1473 and 1473.7 of the California Penal Code.

References

  1. ↑ "Law Dictionary: moral turpitude". Merriam-Webster . Retrieved 22 January 2017.
  2. ↑ A Crime Involving Moral Turpitude! What in the World is That? US immigration and visa lawyers in London
  3. ↑ Chadwick v. State Bar, 49 Cal. 3d 103, 110, 776 P.2d 240, 260 Cal.Rptr. 538 (1989); Sosa-Martinez v. United States AG, 420 F.3d 1338, 1341 (11th Cir. 2005)
  4. ↑ People v. Wheeler, 4 Cal.4th 284, 295-296, 841 P.2d 938, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 418
  5. ↑ Ballard v. Independent School Dist., 320 F.3d 1119 (10th Cir. 2003)
  6. ↑ Chadwick v. State Bar, 49 Cal.3d 103, 776 P.2d 240, 260 Cal.Rptr. 538 (1989)
  7. ↑ 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A); 8 CFR 316.10
  8. ↑ Parry, Wayne (June 10, 2024). "Donald Trump may lose his liquor licenses in New Jersey if his felonies involve 'moral turpitude'". Fortune. Retrieved 29 June 2024.
  9. ↑ Ineligibilities and Waivers: Laws Archived 2017-09-15 at the Wayback Machine Section 212(a) and 217 of the INA
  10. ↑ "Details about the Visa Waiver Program | Embassy of the United States". Archived from the original on 2015-02-16. Retrieved 2015-02-15.
  11. 1 2 United States Department of State. "U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 9 - Visas: 9 FAM 40.21(A) N2 Moral turpitude" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-12-07.
  12. ↑ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-1994-title8/pdf/USCODE-1994-title8-chap11-subchapII_2-partV-sec1251.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  13. ↑ "§ N.7 Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2015-12-24.
  14. ↑ http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/01/09/09-73756.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  15. ↑ Barnes, Robert (March 4, 2021). "In Amy Coney Barrett's first signed majority opinion, Supreme Court sides with government over environmentalists". The Washington Post . Retrieved March 5, 2021.
  16. ↑ Lauren Durr Emery "Failure to Register as a Sex Offender is Not a Crime of Moral Turpitude" The Wake Forest Law Review
  17. ↑ Lawson, Richard S. (January 1, 2018). "Applying for Law School or the Bar Exam, With a DUI in Your Past" . Retrieved June 14, 2020.
  18. ↑ Abruzzese, Rob (March 22, 2013). "Lawyers struggle with substance abuse at nearly twice the rate of general population". Brooklyn Daily Eagle . Retrieved June 14, 2020.
  19. ↑ Doyle, Ty (June 18, 2015). "Can someone become a lawyer if they were convicted of DUI at 20?". Quora. Retrieved June 14, 2020.
  20. 1 2 Mystal, Elie (September 26, 2011). "Law Graduates DENIED Opportunity To Sit For Bar Because They Lied To Law Schools About Their Criminal Records". Above the Law. Retrieved June 14, 2020.
  21. ↑ Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 105 S. Ct. 1916, 85 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1985)
  22. ↑ Morton, Stephen (28 May 2019). "Georgia's strictest possible reading of the law to stop felons from voting". NBC News . Retrieved 3 December 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.