In my job as a hired gun, I deal with a lot of legislation and statute. And, honestly, it’s usually terrifying to see legislation made (as they say, and I paraphrase, you never want to see the making of sausage or laws). But today I came across and interesting dilemma. The definition, or lack thereof, of moral turpitude. What exactly IS moral turpitude? It was not defined in this piece of legislation, so I am sent back to statute - which seems to show that moral turpitude depends completely on where you are in statute and your job. Now, I’m sure a lawyer out there would tell me this is something solved in case law, but I still find it fascinating. Which of course indicates the extent of my dorkiness.
Now, I completely understand that everyone has a different view of what is moral and immoral. But isn’t law supposed to be black and white and not necessarily left up to the observer? And shouldn’t what the state considers immoral behavior be the same for everyone?
Not sure law should, or can be, black and white -- hence the reason we have a Supreme Court. Laws constantly need to be reassessed in the light of our changing society. There will always be friction and fighting.
ReplyDeletePlus, laws are made by humans and humans are often unclear and hedging our bets.
That actually may sometimes be a good thing sometimes--although it does make us vulnerable.