While there is no statutory definition of crime of moral turpitude, over 100 years of case law exists determining whether a given criminal conviction is considered a CMT.  The definition largely turns on the intent[1] involved in committing the criminal act,[2] and in whether the criminal act is considered malum prohibitum (bad because it is prohibited) or malum in se (bad in and of itself).[3]  The gravity of the offense is often not considered relevant.[4]  The definition also, theoretically, can change as time passes and social mores develop and change.[5]  The offense must be a crime to be a crime of moral turpitude.[6]

[1] See § § 8.3-8.13, 8.23, infra.

[2] See § 8.19, infra.

[3] See § § 8.2, 8.22, infra.

[4] See § 8.20, infra.

[5] See § 8.21, infra.

[6] See § 8.19, infra.

Other

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE - SILVA-TREVINO WARNING
In the light of the recent published decision by outgoing Attorney General Mukasey, Matter of Silva-Trevino 24 I. & N. Dec. 687 (A.G. November 2008), the question of what is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and the methodology for deciding it, is currently unsettled. The Ninth Circuits recent 7-5 en banc decision in Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2009), added to this uncertainty by holding that where the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rules on "moral turpitude" in a precedential decision, the Court will apply the doctrine of administrative deference. The combination of these decisions tends to undermine the analytical framework with which these issues are analyzed, and may call into question some previously settled rulings on which non-citizens could normally rely.

Because this issue is still in flux, non-citizens who have pleaded guilty to criminal offenses should neither travel out of the United States, nor, in some cases, out of the 7 states of the 9th Circuit , nor should they apply to naturalize or for other immigration benefits, until they have consulted with competent immigration counsel. Thanks to Jonathan Moore.