My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Moral Turpitude
- Thread starter tomasball
- Start date
Traveling Man
Premium Member
Moral turpitude refers to conduct that shocks the conscience as being inherently
base, vile or depraved; and contrary to both the accepted rules of morality and
the duties owed between persons or to society in general. The term typically
implies something immoral in itself, regardless of whether it is punishable by
law. The doing of the act, and not its prohibition by statute, fixes the moral
turpitude.
Texas courts have held a number of offenses to be crimes of moral turpitude,
including crimes involving
base, vile or depraved; and contrary to both the accepted rules of morality and
the duties owed between persons or to society in general. The term typically
implies something immoral in itself, regardless of whether it is punishable by
law. The doing of the act, and not its prohibition by statute, fixes the moral
turpitude.
Texas courts have held a number of offenses to be crimes of moral turpitude,
including crimes involving
- “dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or deliberate violence;â€
- matters of “personal morality;â€
- conduct committed “knowingly contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good
morals;†- “baseness, vileness, or depravity;â€
- conduct “immoral in itself, regardless of whether it is punishable by law;†or
- “immoral conduct†that is “willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.â
H
Huw
Guest
The question is specifically about crime involving moral turpitude, as opposed to non-criminal situations, so we're looking for the legal definition rather than a philosophical definition. The definition at http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/moral+turpitude looks like a pretty good one-line summary: "A phrase used in Criminal Law to describe conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals".
dhouseholder
Registered User
It is a purposefully vague point, that is why you usually don't see someone get a ticket for or brought up on charges of moral turpitude. I guess technically you could, but anyone with the intelligence of a teaspoon of sand could successfully argue against it, so it is rare. As a general rule of thumb, I say it is a crime that has a victim and that victim was taken advantage of.
An aggravated mugging would be a crime involving moral turpitude, because you took advantage of the benefit of being able to over power someone; while a burglary while someone was not home would be a harder case to prove. However if you knew that person and they trusted you with a key, it would be easier to convict.
What the real hang up on this is that in order to convict someone of moral turpitude, you have to argue what the moral standard is, and since our court system is based on English Common Law, you are held by your peers; and if your peers say that getting cranked up on meth and raping the entire student body, staff, and faculty of a Catholic school is not morally wrong, then it is not moral turpitude.
An aggravated mugging would be a crime involving moral turpitude, because you took advantage of the benefit of being able to over power someone; while a burglary while someone was not home would be a harder case to prove. However if you knew that person and they trusted you with a key, it would be easier to convict.
What the real hang up on this is that in order to convict someone of moral turpitude, you have to argue what the moral standard is, and since our court system is based on English Common Law, you are held by your peers; and if your peers say that getting cranked up on meth and raping the entire student body, staff, and faculty of a Catholic school is not morally wrong, then it is not moral turpitude.
Keep in mind also just because someone has been found guilty of a crime of "Moral Turpitude" this does not exclude them from being able to receive the degrees of Freemasonry, with the exception of the crime on a child. This is why the Lodge must do a thurough investigation and trust the investigating men to question this crime for the story and background and then make a favorable or unfavorable decision.
I have been in Lodge before when a man put yes for check fraud and it was a hot check his ex wife wrote during a divorce almost 10 years ago but since his name was on the account both were charged with the crime. After we investigated him we did not find this reason for him to not become a member and even though we turned in favorable reports he was still found unfavorable. I can't tell you why but I wonder if this played a part in it. I make mention of this to every person coming up that people are not always who they were in their 20's or Teens. It is our job as an investigator to check it out and make a decision.
I have been in Lodge before when a man put yes for check fraud and it was a hot check his ex wife wrote during a divorce almost 10 years ago but since his name was on the account both were charged with the crime. After we investigated him we did not find this reason for him to not become a member and even though we turned in favorable reports he was still found unfavorable. I can't tell you why but I wonder if this played a part in it. I make mention of this to every person coming up that people are not always who they were in their 20's or Teens. It is our job as an investigator to check it out and make a decision.
H
Huw
Guest
Hi Owls.
That seems a little harsh on the chap, since it wasn't his fault. Under your system, do the investigators get a chance to explain their recommendation to the Brethren before the ballot, or do you just report "yes" or "no" without being allowed to say why?
T & F,
Huw
That seems a little harsh on the chap, since it wasn't his fault. Under your system, do the investigators get a chance to explain their recommendation to the Brethren before the ballot, or do you just report "yes" or "no" without being allowed to say why?
T & F,
Huw
Nope. We did do this at meeting one time where an investigator stood up and discussed his findings. A PM then contacted GL and the members was soon contacted by our DDGM, by recommendation of the GM, and he was told what he had done was considered "campaigning", whether it be for or against, and it should not happen again. The only thing that is allowed is "Favorable" or "Unfavorable". Yes I know, our system is not perfect but it is what it is.
H
Huw
Guest
Thanks for explaining, Owls.
Yes, obviously you have to work with the system you have. I can see the point of banning campaigning for a petitioner, obviously that could have all sorts of undesirable consequences. But unfortunately, in this particular case, the ban on explaining looks like it has resulted in an injustice. If I had seen an application which admitted to a fraud charge, and if I wasn't allowed to hear the explanation that it had turned out not to be his fault, then in a spirit of caution I'd likely have voted no in the ballot, even in the face of a favourable recommendation by the committee. And it'd be unfair on the investigators too, because if they weren't allowed to explain why they had reported favourably, I might have been left wondering what the heck they were up to, wondering if maybe they'd gone soft on crime, wondering if they'd done their job properly, wondering if they could be trusted with future investigations.
But I'm sure no other system is perfect either, so I guess we have to live with occasional unfair results.
T & F,
Huw
Yes, obviously you have to work with the system you have. I can see the point of banning campaigning for a petitioner, obviously that could have all sorts of undesirable consequences. But unfortunately, in this particular case, the ban on explaining looks like it has resulted in an injustice. If I had seen an application which admitted to a fraud charge, and if I wasn't allowed to hear the explanation that it had turned out not to be his fault, then in a spirit of caution I'd likely have voted no in the ballot, even in the face of a favourable recommendation by the committee. And it'd be unfair on the investigators too, because if they weren't allowed to explain why they had reported favourably, I might have been left wondering what the heck they were up to, wondering if maybe they'd gone soft on crime, wondering if they'd done their job properly, wondering if they could be trusted with future investigations.
But I'm sure no other system is perfect either, so I guess we have to live with occasional unfair results.
T & F,
Huw
Nate Riley
Premium Member
We were having a similar discussion at the lodge a while back and a police officer (with considerable rank) among pointed out that the term was not a masonic term, but a legal term (as others have pointed out). Consequently, we were discussing back ground checks and who gets to see them.
Found this on the link on the internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude. There is a chart with what is and ain't "a crime involving moral turpitude" (at least as far as the courts have found thus). I realize Wiki is arguable, but this one seems fairly well referenced.
Found this on the link on the internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude. There is a chart with what is and ain't "a crime involving moral turpitude" (at least as far as the courts have found thus). I realize Wiki is arguable, but this one seems fairly well referenced.