What is Moral Turpitude?

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

It seems everyone is unsure what a crime of moral turpitude is. If you have never been in any kind of trouble with the law (knock on wood!), then you have nothing to worry about and are probably a saint. For the rest of us, here's a quick rundown of what it is. Please keep in mind that this is by no means an exhaustive list.

Moral turpitude includes but is not limited to the following: Armed robbery, Assault with a deadly weapon, Attempted Insurance Fraud, Fabricating and Presenting a False Public Claim, False Reporting To Law Enforcement Agency, Falsification of Records to the Court, Forgery, Fraud, Hit & Run, Illegal Sale & Trafficking in Controlled Substances, Indecent Exposure, Kidnapping, Larceny, Mann Act (transportation of women across state lines for the purpose of prostitution), Misleading Sale of Securities in Connection with Transfer of Real Property, Perjury, Possession of Heroin for Sale, Unlawful Sale or Dispensing Narcotic Drugs, Rape, Shoplifting, and Soliciting Prostitution.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Thanks bro, I always thought it had something to do with sexy-naughty sh!t or the like.... man I'm running on lack of caffeine today.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Thanks bro, I always thought it had something to do with sexy-naughty sh!t or the like.... man I'm running on lack of caffeine today.

Fatigue makes cowards of us all but is that all you got, c'mon Len we expect more. Dose up on java juice and come back with your A-game. Then we can engage in some witty repartee or at least a spirited discussion of Wittgenstein.

[Caladan 19]

A rough guide is 'moral turpitude' = the sort of person you'd have a hard time explaining to your parents. All felonies, many drug crimes, and a handful of misdemeanors, with borderline cases being dependent entirely on the details.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

A rough guide is 'moral turpitude' = the sort of person you'd have a hard time explaining to your parents. All felonies, many drug crimes, and a handful of misdemeanors, with borderline cases being dependent entirely on the details.

That would depend on your parents, wouldn't it? White collar criminals can be quite charming. Felonies are out, since the petty offence exception goes out the window and you'll need the waiver, most misdemeanours (except something like DUI/DWI) are included in the list in some fashion. The borderline cases are things like being forced to do something under duress or some kind of threat of violence or harm.

[Caladan 19]

A rough guide is 'moral turpitude' = the sort of person you'd have a hard time explaining to your parents. All felonies, many drug crimes, and a handful of misdemeanors, with borderline cases being dependent entirely on the details.

That would depend on your parents, wouldn't it? White collar criminals can be quite charming. Felonies are out, since the petty offence exception goes out the window and you'll need the waiver, most misdemeanours (except something like DUI/DWI) are included in the list in some fashion. The borderline cases are things like being forced to do something under duress or some kind of threat of violence or harm.

I have the full list around here somewhere, but there's a lot of regulatory misdemeanory stuff like breach of the peace that is excluded (what you might think of as 'stupid ####### you did in college') completely, and often what's borderline (to my mind at least) about some of the misdemeanors is that it depends what statute your crime fell under, not what you were punished. So the judge could be lenient on you, say, in a possession case, by only fining you, but the crime you were convicted of could have carried a sentence of X years. Or tax evasion, which isn't a problem as long as it's not willful tax evasion.

[daisylynn 0]

IR5-Is what dh has considered moral turpitude? Or is that what we're trying to figure out? I just don't get all this termanology! If it is considered mt, then we mark that on the ds230 right? Will they even look past that when we send it in? Or would the waiver be sent in with that? This just gets more and more involved!

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

A rough guide is 'moral turpitude' = the sort of person you'd have a hard time explaining to your parents. All felonies, many drug crimes, and a handful of misdemeanors, with borderline cases being dependent entirely on the details.

That would depend on your parents, wouldn't it? White collar criminals can be quite charming. Felonies are out, since the petty offence exception goes out the window and you'll need the waiver, most misdemeanours (except something like DUI/DWI) are included in the list in some fashion. The borderline cases are things like being forced to do something under duress or some kind of threat of violence or harm.

I have the full list around here somewhere, but there's a lot of regulatory misdemeanory stuff like breach of the peace that is excluded (what you might think of as 'stupid ####### you did in college') completely, and often what's borderline (to my mind at least) about some of the misdemeanors is that it depends what statute your crime fell under, not what you were punished. So the judge could be lenient on you, say, in a possession case, by only fining you, but the crime you were convicted of could have carried a sentence of X years. Or tax evasion, which isn't a problem as long as it's not willful tax evasion.

Caladan, you're absolutely right. We don't think that the high school hijinks and pranks can come back to haunt you (that doesn't mean you shouldn't do them, just don't get caught this halloween). I posted a while back about the whole mens rea (evil, guilty or depraved mind) bit (actus rea is OK, mens rea is not). It makes sense to absolutely nobody who's ever read the list (everybody has a slightly different one). Even the courts can't agree on what is and what is not a CMT. The potential charge in many cases carries much, much more weight than the actual sentence. If you get caught in the system (p*** off the right person) you could potentially get indicted for eating a grape in a supermarket and end up needing a waiver. If a disgruntled judge or JP thinks that you were "colouring" your testimony in a traffic case, you might just get hit with a charge of perjury and even if the charges are thrown out, you would need a waiver. It's stupid and unfair and pointless but that's what we have to deal with.

[My Lao Po 0]

It seems everyone is unsure what a crime of moral turpitude is. If you have never been in any kind of trouble with the law (knock on wood!), then you have nothing to worry about and are probably a saint. For the rest of us, here's a quick rundown of what it is. Please keep in mind that this is by no means an exhaustive list.

Moral turpitude includes but is not limited to the following: Armed robbery, Assault with a deadly weapon, Attempted Insurance Fraud, Fabricating and Presenting a False Public Claim, False Reporting To Law Enforcement Agency, Falsification of Records to the Court, Forgery, Fraud, Hit & Run, Illegal Sale & Trafficking in Controlled Substances, Indecent Exposure, Kidnapping, Larceny, Mann Act (transportation of women across state lines for the purpose of prostitution), Misleading Sale of Securities in Connection with Transfer of Real Property, Perjury, Possession of Heroin for Sale, Unlawful Sale or Dispensing Narcotic Drugs, Rape, Shoplifting, and Soliciting Prostitution.

The term "involving moral turpitude" is difficult to define with precision. However, a challenge to this designation as being unconstitutionally vague was rejected by the Appeals Court.

Chu v. Cornell, 247 F.2d 929 (9th Cir. 1957), cert. denied 355 U.S. 892 (1958). Administrative case law has characterized moral turpitude as "a nebulous concept, which refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience." Obviously, offenses such as murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnaping, robbery, and aggravated assaults involve moral turpitude. However, assaults [not] involving dangerous weapons or evil intent have been held not to involve moral turpitude.

There is administrative and judicial case law holding that any crime having as an element, the intent to defraud, is a crime involving moral turpitude. See Gordon and Mailman, Immigration Law and Procedure, § 75.05[1][d].

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

IR5-Is what dh has considered moral turpitude? Or is that what we're trying to figure out? I just don't get all this termanology! If it is considered mt, then we mark that on the ds230 right? Will they even look past that when we send it in? Or would the waiver be sent in with that? This just gets more and more involved!

Daisylynn, relax and please try not to worry. The reason I am trying to figure the moral turpitude with respect to your case is that on ds230 question 30b states(concerning grounds of excludability), "An alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, a crime involving moral turpitude or violation of any law relating

to a controlled substance or who is the spouse, son or daughter of such a trafficker who knowingly has benefited from the

trafficking activities in the past five years; who has been convicted of 2 or more offenses for which the aggregate

sentences were 5 years or more; who is coming to the United States to engage in prostitution or commercialized vice or

who has engaged in prostitution or procuring within the past 10 years; who is or has been an illicit trafficker in any

controlled substance; who has committed a serious criminal offense in the United States and who has asserted immunity

from prosecution; who, while serving as a foreign government official and within the previous 24-month period, was

responsible for or directly carried out particularly severe violations of religious freedom; or whom the President has

identified as a person who plays a significant role in a severe form of trafficking in persons, who otherwise has knowingly

aided, abetted, assisted or colluded with such a trafficker in severe forms of trafficking in persons, or who is the spouse,

son or daughter of such a trafficker who knowingly has benefited from the trafficking activities within the past five years."

On ds230 question 31 reads " Have you ever been charged, arrested or convicted of any offense or crime? (If answer is Yes, please explain)"

This means that we must now turn to the question of whether or not a crime of moral turpitude has been committed. It is important because making a waiver application will take time and you do not want to make a mistake on your ds230 or your waiver. The USCIS will look at the indictable assualt and the utterance of threat together as evidence of CMT. Assault (with some evidence of intent to cause bodily harm) is a CMT, regular assault is not. Even if I am wrong with respect to the CMT question the USCIS will look to the maximum amount of time a charge may carry, not what the actual sentence was. The maximum penalty in Canada for indictable assault is 5 years (simple indictable assault) and the maximum penalty for uttering a threat is 5 years. Since the aggregate (potential) sentence is 10 years and there are two charges, I would advise you to get the waiver. You can send in the ds230 with or without the waiver but you will most likely need the waiver in hand to move to the next step. You should send in your waiver form now and you can file your ds230 in the meantime. That will get the ball rolling.

[/size]

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

It seems everyone is unsure what a crime of moral turpitude is. If you have never been in any kind of trouble with the law (knock on wood!), then you have nothing to worry about and are probably a saint. For the rest of us, here's a quick rundown of what it is. Please keep in mind that this is by no means an exhaustive list.

Moral turpitude includes but is not limited to the following: Armed robbery, Assault with a deadly weapon, Attempted Insurance Fraud, Fabricating and Presenting a False Public Claim, False Reporting To Law Enforcement Agency, Falsification of Records to the Court, Forgery, Fraud, Hit & Run, Illegal Sale & Trafficking in Controlled Substances, Indecent Exposure, Kidnapping, Larceny, Mann Act (transportation of women across state lines for the purpose of prostitution), Misleading Sale of Securities in Connection with Transfer of Real Property, Perjury, Possession of Heroin for Sale, Unlawful Sale or Dispensing Narcotic Drugs, Rape, Shoplifting, and Soliciting Prostitution.

The term "involving moral turpitude" is difficult to define with precision. However, a challenge to this designation as being unconstitutionally vague was rejected by the Appeals Court.

Chu v. Cornell, 247 F.2d 929 (9th Cir. 1957), cert. denied 355 U.S. 892 (1958). Administrative case law has characterized moral turpitude as "a nebulous concept, which refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience." Obviously, offenses such as murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnaping, robbery, and aggravated assaults involve moral turpitude. However, assaults [not] involving dangerous weapons or evil intent have been held not to involve moral turpitude.

There is administrative and judicial case law holding that any crime having as an element, the intent to defraud, is a crime involving moral turpitude. See Gordon and Mailman, Immigration Law and Procedure, § 75.05[1][d].

Good point. Some of the BIA and circuit cases (don't bother pointing out nemo judex in sua causa) have situations where there are dissenting voices. When is mens rea not mens rea but actus rea, no one really knows but that doesn't stop the courts. It's like that old saying, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it." The moral turpitude question shows up in all sorts of areas, not just immigration. No need to sweat though, take it as it goes.

[Caladan 19]

A rough guide is 'moral turpitude' = the sort of person you'd have a hard time explaining to your parents. All felonies, many drug crimes, and a handful of misdemeanors, with borderline cases being dependent entirely on the details.

That would depend on your parents, wouldn't it? White collar criminals can be quite charming. Felonies are out, since the petty offence exception goes out the window and you'll need the waiver, most misdemeanours (except something like DUI/DWI) are included in the list in some fashion. The borderline cases are things like being forced to do something under duress or some kind of threat of violence or harm.

I have the full list around here somewhere, but there's a lot of regulatory misdemeanory stuff like breach of the peace that is excluded (what you might think of as 'stupid ####### you did in college') completely, and often what's borderline (to my mind at least) about some of the misdemeanors is that it depends what statute your crime fell under, not what you were punished. So the judge could be lenient on you, say, in a possession case, by only fining you, but the crime you were convicted of could have carried a sentence of X years. Or tax evasion, which isn't a problem as long as it's not willful tax evasion.

Caladan, you're absolutely right. We don't think that the high school hijinks and pranks can come back to haunt you (that doesn't mean you shouldn't do them, just don't get caught this halloween). I posted a while back about the whole mens rea (evil, guilty or depraved mind) bit (actus rea is OK, mens rea is not). It makes sense to absolutely nobody who's ever read the list (everybody has a slightly different one). Even the courts can't agree on what is and what is not a CMT. The potential charge in many cases carries much, much more weight than the actual sentence. If you get caught in the system (p*** off the right person) you could potentially get indicted for eating a grape in a supermarket and end up needing a waiver. If a disgruntled judge or JP thinks that you were "colouring" your testimony in a traffic case, you might just get hit with a charge of perjury and even if the charges are thrown out, you would need a waiver. It's stupid and unfair and pointless but that's what we have to deal with.

Or the Jena 6, where the prosecutor called sneakers a 'deadly weapon', so the kid would theoretically be inadmissible for life for kicking someone in the ribs. I have an acquaintance who is a prosecutor and he said they've recently been receiving training on how their charges affect immigration, because usually the prosecutor only cares about convicting the right person with an appropriate sentence. Most of the time, people don't care about the specific statute as long as the punishment seems to fit, and judges usually have enough discretion to give a fine or probation. Employers won't care once the crime is explained (or the record is sealed), but immigration has to go by the statute.

[Misty1979 0]

After reading all that, it kind of makes me wonder, what ISN'T a crime of Moral Turpitude? Seems like it can be stretched to fit any scenario

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

After reading all that, it kind of makes me wonder, what ISN'T a crime of Moral Turpitude? Seems like it can be stretched to fit any scenario

Scary but true.

[Fandango 1,440]

Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the USA, which refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals".[1]

It is of great importance for immigration purposes, as only those offences which are defined as involving moral turpitude are considered bars to immigration into the USA.

And there's a nifty lil chart on the link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude

Edited October 28, 2007 by LisaD