When people use the term moral turpitude, what comes to mind? With all the violence happening in our communities, it’s a good time to think about the concept.
Chances are you’ve heard someone say that with no remorse or guilty conscience, someone’s act was of moral turpitude. But maybe more recently, you’ve heard or read about a famous coach accused of moral turpitude.
I began pondering the concept after reading an article about defendants who were tried, found guilty, and served time for crimes of moral turpitude. According to the 1901 Alabama Constitution, an individual convicted of a crime of moral turpitude can prevent one from voting.
To be convicted of a crime is pretty bad, but a crime of moral turpitude sounds horrible for a human being, right? To be accused of such character traits, regardless of what they are, can’t be good!
Don’t let the word moral mislead you in its connection with turpitude. The term moral turpitude isn’t a religious one but rather a legal designation or concept in our American society.
Should crimes of moral turpitude ban revoke a rehabilitated citizen’s voting rights?
What is moral turpitude?
Does moral turpitude mean the individual has no morals, filter, conscience, or human decency?
Moral deals with right or wrong behaviors based on one’s beliefs and principles or the lack of them. Society has standards relative to relationships, behaviors, and treatment of one another. People’s actions reflect their moral nature or character—good, bad, or evil.
Turpitude denotes depravity. Things done of moral depravity suggest something vile and evil.
The online Findlaw Legal Dictionary states, “Moral turpitude is a legal concept used to define an act (crime) as immoral, depraved, and contrary to justice.” Such an act violates community standards and societal norms.
To accuse someone of moral turpitude definitely isn’t flattery. And an individual who serves time for such a crime isn’t a stand-up or model citizen.
Who determines whether an act is of moral turpitude?
The courts determine moral turpitude, and the definition can vary from state to state. Several vile acts may include murder, rape, child abuse, and other malicious crimes deemed by the courts.
Some say there’s a difference between societal and religious morality.
Without getting stuck in the marsh and weeds of religious beliefs and society’s culture, many people believe morals and religion are inseparable, but many others don’t.
Many believe society can require, maintain, and police norms or standards that are separate from religious convictions and commandments. These societal standards, which are considered the conscience of a community, can evolve and change.
In sharp contrast, morality and laws based on God’s Word never change.
Here are several things that have evolved, are accepted, and no longer shock society’s conscience.
Premarital sex
Gay marriage and rights
Support for a female president
The increasing acceptance of previously taboo behaviors evolves as church attendance and the importance of religion in people’s lives change and decline.
A crime of moral turpitude doesn’t identify or define the specific crimes and is ambiguous. Knowing that the courts may differ in their interpretation of moral turpitude is problematic relative to the ideals of equal justice.
The nailing of Christ, God’s son and the savior of the world, to the cross was evidence of the depth of man’s moral turpitude.
And Christ forgives all who believe in Him.
The moral turpitude label can be consequential even after a criminal pays their debt to society.
I am thankful that there are advocates who help rehabilitated criminals regain their right to vote and serve as jurors and witnesses.
Be well.