A former high-ranking San Francisco government employee convicted of felony possession of child pornography will continue to receive his government pension because, according to city regulations, evidence of “moral turpitude” is required to revoke a pension yet viewing violent kiddie porn does not qualify as moral turpitude.
As reported here in the Tatler, Larry Brinkin, a prominent San Francisco Human Rights Commissioner and nationally known gay rights advocate, was arrested in 2012 for possessing and possibly distributing videos and images of babies being raped by adult men. Because of Brinkin’s “iconic” stature in the community as the person who pioneered “domestic partnership” laws nationwide, supporters at the time accused the police of framing him with false charges. [...]
Knox said he did not believe Brinkin’s city pension would be affected by the plea because his conviction doesn’t fall under “moral turpitude.” Under Proposition C, approved by voters in 2008, a city employee convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude – usually theft, fraud or a breach of the public trust – cannot collect employer-funded retirement benefits.
In case you’re thinking that perhaps this is just an over-reaction to Brinkin possessing some pornography which, unbeknownst to him, just happened to depict minors under the age of 18: Nope. The details of what type of imagery he enjoyed (and what he said about it) are so horrifying and so unimaginably vile that to even describe it feels like a crime. But the exact nature of his conviction is necessary for the reader to assess whether or not Brinkin’s actions should count as “moral turpitude.”
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/01/23/kiddie-porn-does-not-count-as-moral-turpitude-to-s-f-govt/?singlepage=trueA fairly good description of "moral turpitude" can be found in this wikipedia entry - go down to the "crimes against persons" section. Several of the mentioned offenses that might apply in this case include rape, including statutory rape, assault, contributing to the delinquency of a minor. But that's not "viewing porn".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitudeNote the very first sentence of the article...
Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States and some other countries that refers to "conduct that is considered
contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals."
I'd have to agree that nothing which is remotely similar to the act of viewing pornography is in the enumerated list of behavior and/or crime which would be under "moral turpitude". Further, the enumerated list does not include any and all felonies, such as would prohibit an individual from purchasing firearms, it is a strict list. Of course, the general definition "against community standards" would possibly trump any such enumerated list.
In that latter case, we have the conclusion as brought to us by the news media, that San Francisco does not consider this behavior as "moral turpitude". It appears that is substantially correct. It would be nice to see some disclaimer by the city such as "this behavior, although appalling, does not constitute legally 'moral turpitude'. "
Good luck with that. And in concluding, although for San Francisco this is a virtual impossibility, it's worth noting what would have happened if the individual involved had been a Republican, a Tea Party member, an elected Libertarian, or any other, unrelated and not beholden to the current Fascist leaning current regime.
