What is the difference between a mala in se crime and a mala prohibita crime? What are examples of each?

A malum (not mala) in se crime is one which is naturally criminal, on moral grounds, while a malum prohibidum crime is one which, if it were not criminalized, would not be perceived as particularly undesirable. Thus malum prohibidum crimes are regulatory offenses, attaching to acts that the legislature might want to control or even gain taxes on, but not one which would be condemned just because of the nature of the act itself. Murder, assault, false imprisonment, and perhaps fraud are malum in se crimes because those actxs are universally condemned as wrong. All sorts of regulatory offenses (such as parking or even tax evasion) are most likely malum prohibidum because they are the result of a legislative structure but not the result of moral condemnation (unless you adopt the principle that any violation of law is immoral...a pretty extreme position). The idea that some things are immoral and others are not is of course very subjective and debatable, but this distinction has a long tradition in law. That doesn't make it any less debatable, but it is nevertheless well-established. The significance of the distinction is often academic, but it can also matter in regulatory areas where a malum prohibidum conviction, for instance, will not matter but a malum in se one will--such as in immigration, where a murderer might be barred but a tax evader, and surely a parking violator, might easily qualify. Mala in se v. mala prohibita

While crimes are typically broken into degrees or classes to punish appropriately, all offenses can be divided into 'mala in se' and 'mala prohibita' laws. Both are Latin legal terms, mala in se meaning crimes that are thought to be inherently evil or morally wrong, and thus will be widely regarded as crimes regardless of jurisdiction. Mala in se offenses are felonies, property crimes, immoral acts and corrupt acts by public officials. Mala prohibita, on the other hand, refers to offenses that do not have wrongfulness associated with them. Parking in a restricted area, driving the wrong way down a one-way street, jaywalking or unlicensed fishing are examples of acts that are prohibited by statute, but without which are not considered wrong. Mala prohibita statutes are usually imposed strictly, as there does not need to be mens rea component for punishment under those offenses, just the act itself. For this reason, it can be argued that offenses that are mala prohibita are not really crimes at all.[25]