Comments on: “Moral Turpitude”—The Complete Post http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/17/moral-turpitude-the-complete-post/ Tue, 31 Jan 2012 01:23:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: AdamsDrafting » Blog Archive » For Optimal Contract Language, Don’t Follow the Herd http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/17/moral-turpitude-the-complete-post/comment-page-1/#comment-96035 AdamsDrafting » Blog Archive » For Optimal Contract Language, Don’t Follow the Herd Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:52:45 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/17/moral-turpitude-the-final-post/#comment-96035 [...] is unhelpfully vague, and it has given rise to a least one head-scratching court opinion. See this December 2007 blog post and MSCD 12.176–194 (the more recent version of my analysis). I’d never use moral turpitude [...] [...] is unhelpfully vague, and it has given rise to a least one head-scratching court opinion. See this December 2007 blog post and MSCD 12.176–194 (the more recent version of my analysis). I’d never use moral turpitude [...]

]]> By: Mister Thorne http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/17/moral-turpitude-the-complete-post/comment-page-1/#comment-26051 Mister Thorne Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:57:27 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/17/moral-turpitude-the-final-post/#comment-26051 I don't get it. The aim is simplicity, right? The phrase "any crime other than a crime that is unrelated to the Employee’s employment" is equivalent to "any crime related to the Employee’s employment." Why not use the simpler phrase? Also, David makes a good point. The first-stab copy is missing some punctuation, so it could be read several ways. My guess is that the phrase "other than a crime that is unrelated to the Employee’s employment" should be set off by commas. Without the punctuation, we can't be sure that "punishable" modifies"any crime" or "a crime that is unrelated." One last comment. The conjunction that begins "and is punishable" should be replaced with the pronoun "that" because the phrase "any crime and is punishable" doesn't make sense. If we make those changes, the whole thing turns out to be this: "the Employee is charged with any crime related to the Employee’s employment that is punishable only by a fine or other non-custodial penalty, or both" Now, what does that have to do with moral turpitude? I don’t get it. The aim is simplicity, right?

The phrase “any crime other than a crime that is unrelated to the Employee’s employment” is equivalent to “any crime related to the Employee’s employment.” Why not use the simpler phrase?

Also, David makes a good point. The first-stab copy is missing some punctuation, so it could be read several ways. My guess is that the phrase “other than a crime that is unrelated to the Employee’s employment” should be set off by commas. Without the punctuation, we can’t be sure that “punishable” modifies”any crime” or “a crime that is unrelated.”

One last comment. The conjunction that begins “and is punishable” should be replaced with the pronoun “that” because the phrase “any crime and is punishable” doesn’t make sense.

If we make those changes, the whole thing turns out to be this:

“the Employee is charged with any crime related to the Employee’s employment that is punishable only by a fine or other non-custodial penalty, or both”

Now, what does that have to do with moral turpitude?

]]> By: Ken Adams http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/17/moral-turpitude-the-complete-post/comment-page-1/#comment-24474 Ken Adams Thu, 20 Dec 2007 02:37:41 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/17/moral-turpitude-the-final-post/#comment-24474 David: The elements <em>that is unrelated to</em> and <em>is punishable only by</em> are linked by <em>and</em>, so <em>or both</em> could't be used to join them—they're already joined. So <em>or both</em> could only relate to <em>a fine or other non-custodial penalty</em>. By the way, I think you meant "ambiguous" rather than "vague." Ken David: The elements that is unrelated to and is punishable only by are linked by and, so or both could’t be used to join them—they’re already joined. So or both could only relate to a fine or other non-custodial penalty.

By the way, I think you meant “ambiguous” rather than “vague.”

Ken

]]> By: David http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/17/moral-turpitude-the-complete-post/comment-page-1/#comment-24466 David Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:28:21 +0000 http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2007/12/17/moral-turpitude-the-final-post/#comment-24466 Isn't that "or both" on the end vague? Is it Both a non-custodial penalty and fine, or Both unrelated to employment and lightly punished? Isn’t that “or both” on the end vague? Is it Both a non-custodial penalty and fine, or Both unrelated to employment and lightly punished?

]]>