Research into "Moral Turpitude" bears interesting results...

I am a word and language aficionado, love word play and have a thirst for general trivia about how we communicate. (And a whole bunch of other topics too.) So as it happens I occasionally find myself just looking up random shit on the internet to satiate my need for knowledge. Today I was applying for a job and came across a question about "moral turpitude." I have heard this term before and never much thought about it. Originally I assumed it had something to do with morals and that is pretty much right on. However, in this day and age one can never be too careful and I of course thought to myself that I really never had bothered to look it up to see what exactly "moral turpitude" actually meant. So I did and I actually learned something.

Turns out that it is a legal term that pretty much means what I thought but is also quite broad and/or vague. From Wikipedia: "Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States that refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals." Talk about a cultural relativist's field day. Does that mean the whole US (or other nation) as the community; a state, a county, a city, my weird neighbor, my not-so-weird neighbor, various net fora I frequent? I guess it really doesn't matter much just as long as the "community" you are part of can all agree on what is good and what is bad. Then again that has been a problem from time immemorial. Hell I often disagree with myself depending on given circumstances. For instance "killing is wrong" unless it's a situation of me or the other guy. Or if killing one person saves a hundred, or killing a perfect saint can save a hundred rapists. See it's all a bunch of grey area, well I'd let the hundred rapist die and really who could blame me? Oh right their families and other like-minded sociopaths.

Anyway, that's all very interesting but to me the interesting part is that this definition can be used and is used for all sorts of strange crap. Certain states and even cities in the US have "moral turpitude" statutes regarding such things as credibility to testify in court (prior "conviction" in this case is not even a requirement to impeach a witness, just the accusation), homosexual activity (remember that there are still back ass-ward states in the Union that have "sodomy" laws), and also as grounds for denying a visa for entry to the US. What is strange about all of these examples is that it ranges from arbitrary to absurd in multiple ways. Thankfully the US State Department has a specified list that breaks this concept down for people that would otherwise be divided on just what constitutes "moral turpitude" *spoken like the guy saying "gingivitis" on those mouthwash commercials years ago* According the the USSD "moral turpitude" is a whole list of fairly random and loosely consistent crimes ranging from murder, arson, rape, lewdness (okay that one doesn't really fit), prostitution, fraud, bigamy (not kidding), abandonment (leaving a child in destitution), tax evasion (willful), robbery, theft, and on and on. Generally on this list are all things that I am against and I think most rational people would be too. So essentially it is a catch-all term for shit "we" don't like (who-the-hell-ever "we" happens to be.) So I am left wondering why we need such a term. Obviously it's easier to insert it as a clause in contracts rather than a whole list of specific items one should not do while under said contract. Probably less obvious to those that are under a contract with such a clause is that it is broad, vague and open to interpretation. Which leaves the door open for some legal department weasel or the executives to suddenly decide that talking about celebrity sex tapes constitutes some form of "moral turpitude" and have somebody fired for exercising free speech. That's just one example off the top of my head about how such a term could be abused.

And just for randomness sake, a little further down the rabbit-hole I hit on a link for "Mayhem." Also something that is considered "moral turpitude."
Now this one really blew my mind. I was certain that I knew what "mayhem" was. I would have put it in the same category as riots, destruction, and general acts of violence. But as it turns out "mayhem" is a specific and well defined crime that is more akin to aggravated battery. Technically, according to the great Wiki, "mayhem" is:

...the intentional and wanton removal of a body part that would handicap a person's ability to defend himself in combat. Under the strict common law definition, this required damage to an eye or a limb, while cutting off an ear or a nose was deemed not sufficiently disabling. Later the meaning of the crime expanded to encompass any mutilation, disfigurement, or crippling act done using any instrument. The noun "mayhem", and the verb "maim", came from Old French mahaigne.

Now that makes sense. Mahaigne, Maim, Mayhem is a nice clear progression. Where or when it got to mean violent ruckus still eludes me but I'm sure at some point I will find out. Thanks for tuning in for this week's random etymology post.