Illegal Organ Trade and Moral Turpitude: The Isaac Rosenbaum Case
Introduction
The trafficking of human beings for the purpose of extracting their organs is a common phenomenon. Estimates indicate that the trafficking of illegal organs generates 1.5 billion dollars annually from 12,000 unsanctioned transplants (Gonzalez et al., 2020). Opportunists like Isaac Rosenbaum often take advantage of desperate individuals to facilitate the sale of organs to wealthy recipients. Despite the heinousness of such actions, individuals implicated in such crimes are seldom deported because they do not constitute moral turpitude.
This paper aims to address the primary issue that black market trade in human organs must be categorized as moral turpitude because it fits specific conventionally dictated standards. Isaac Rosenbaum’s case fits the category of moral turpitude because it was committed within five years of entry into the country, resulted in at least a year of incarceration, and is a reprehensible act.
Case: Isaac Rosenbaum and the Organ Black Market
Law enforcement Agencies and the Department of Justice have been at the forefront insofar as addressing crimes involving human trafficking is concerned. On the 11th of July 2012, Isaac Rosenbaum was convicted for the acquisition, reception, and transfer of human organs for use in transplantation (O’Regan, 2021). The Department of Justice noted that the Israeli national facilitated the sale of organs from Israeli citizens who would travel to the United States to complete the transactions.
Isaac Rosenbaum was a Brooklyn resident who was arrested for brokering the sale of three kidneys to New Jersey recipients. He purchased the organs in Israel at an estimated price of 10,000 dollars and sold them for more than 160,000 dollars to desperate patients (Epting, 2020). Rosenbaum often threatened his clients and forced them to go through with purchases if any individual thought of changing their mind.
It is believed that he was deeply involved in the brokering business for more than a decade and profited immensely from the endeavor (Epting, 2020). He was sentenced to two and a half years for his crimes (Epting, 2020). The offender admitted to fabricating cover stories designed to mislead U.S. health practitioners as to the authenticity of the organ donation procedures.
Isaac Rosenbaum’s actions set a precedent for the conviction of cases involving the illegal brokerage of human organs. The case is hailed as the first federal conviction for illegal organ transplants since the passage of the National Organ Transplant Act (O’Regan, 2021). However, despite the gravity of his crimes, he has not been deported in view of the fact that federal immigration officials determined that his crime did not meet the threshold for moral turpitude. The case illustrates the intersection between morality and legality and whether or not the illegal sale of organs constitutes an immoral act that attracts a harsh legal penalty.
Illegal Organ Trade
The severity of organ trade around the world is a forgone conclusion. The International Labor Organization estimates that approximately 40 million people have been victimized by human traffickers, with more than 10% being used for organ extraction (Gonzalez et al., 2020). Organ trafficking involves a variety of illegal activities designed to generate profit from the acquisition of organs for transplantation.
Migrants are among the most vulnerable populations to organ trafficking. Exposure to extreme socio-economic and political situations in their native countries increases their vulnerability to exploitation. Smugglers and opportunists exploit susceptible individuals struggling to access a host nation. For instance, in 2015, Pakistani refugees in Lebanon who were attempting to escape the Syrian civil war were barred from re-registering in a second country by the United Nations (Gonzalez et al., 2020). Individuals who were stopped from registering were so desperate that they resorted to selling their organs to survive.
Category: Moral Turpitude
The severity of human trafficking for organ donation by foreign individuals in the United States is a matter of intense debate. Moral turpitude was first recognized in American law in 1981 when individuals convicted of a felony or other crimes involving moral turpitude were denied entry into the U.S. (Lerner, 2021). The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1917 determined that individuals convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude were not eligible for entry into the U.S. and could be deported (Lerner, 2021).
The legal grounds for expulsion have evolved over the years, but the fundamental elements of moral turpitude have remained unchanged. The elements were reflected in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and were further broadened in the Immigration Act of 1996, which highlighted the requirement for a one-year prison sentence (Lerner, 2021). The principle has been applied in the extradition of individuals incriminated in various heinous acts.
It is worth noting because the current framework regarding moral turpitude is ill-defined, which means that judges and law enforcement agencies must rely on personal moral beliefs when making decisions. This is evidenced by the fact that he was not deported despite the appalling nature and immorality of Isaac Rosenbaum’s deeds. He was spared from punishment despite the heinousness of his actions and the degree to which they shocked the public’s consciousness.
Criteria for Moral Turpitude
The first criterion for moral turpitude stipulates that the individual in question must have committed the crime within a specified duration after entry into the United States. The Department of Justice stipulates that to be convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, an individual must have committed the crime within five years of residency (The Department of Justice, 2022). Acts such as the trafficking of humans for purposes of organ harvesting are not only immoral but also actions that shock the public conscience. The second requirement for deportation under moral turpitude is the offender’s conviction for a period exceeding one year (The Department of Justice, 2022). The final and most intensely debated criterion is the reprehensible and immoral nature of illegal organ trafficking.
Modern societies consider treating people as objects as legally and ethically unacceptable. The concept of human rights presupposes that every individual must be treated as a living being rather than an object (Andorno, 2020). Therefore, it is often the case that modern legal systems reject practices that distort the distinction between people and things. The clear difference between the concepts above is often referred to as “the primary truth of law” and is a fundamental principle in contemporary legal systems (Andorno, 2020, p. 33).
The non-commercialization of human body parts is a specific application of the “summa divisio” between things and people (Andorno, 2020, p. 34). The principle is based on the notion that human organs should not be treated as commodities subject to the laws of supply and demand. Therefore, the trade in human organs must be admonished on the premise that it facilitates the commodification of human beings.
The tragedy of the overwhelming demand for organs for transplant patients has contributed to the prevalence of illegal markets across the globe, particularly in wealthy nations such as the United States. The desire to survive is instinctive in humans and has the capacity to overcome common bonds between individuals. It is often the case that involved individuals disregard decency and humanity, thus necessitating the implementation of robust regulations and laws. The opportunistic human cannibalism that such practices promote has no place in human society.
It is improper to admonish the practice without providing practical solutions to help end the vice. There is a need to improve existing donor programs to help meet the need for organs in the United States. Deaths from road accidents have the capacity to address the demand for organs, provided the social and scientific hurdles that impede access to the organs above are addressed.
The focus must be on altruistic gifting, where money is eliminated from the transaction. The nature of the transaction and the motivation for completion change as soon as financial incentives are introduced. The poor and vulnerable in the community willingly accept monetary compensation from greedy brokers keen on profiting from the desperation of wealthy individuals.
The non-existent government’s drive to facilitate deceased donation means that patients in need of emergency organ donations lose their lives. The facilitation of the sale of organs increases organ tourism in poor countries. In addition, it incentivizes agents such as Isaac Rosenbaum to illegally transport foreign nationals to the United States to harvest their organs.
The Match
The Isaac Rosenbaum case qualifies as involving moral turpitude, despite federal immigration authorities concluding that his offense was insufficient for extradition. First, Isaac Rosenbaum committed his crime within five years of entry into the United States. He confessed to facilitating the harvesting of three kidneys from Israeli nationals, whom he transported to the United States for that sole purpose.
Secondly, he was sentenced to serve a two-and-a-half-year jail term, which is in line with the requirement that an individual be incarcerated for at least one year. Finally, Isaac Rosenbaum’s acts were reprehensible because they subverted human dignity. He treated human organs as commodities that were bought and sold for profit.
Conclusion
The Rosenbaum case provides an opportunity for the determination of whether or not the illegal brokering of human organs should fall under the category of moral turpitude. It involves an individual who provided the means through which desperate individuals could sell their organs to wealthy patients in need of life-saving organ transplants. The objectification of individuals and the commercialization of organs directly contravened the principles of human dignity. In addition, the standards that define moral turpitude, such as residency for less than five years and conviction for a period exceeding a year, were evident in Rosenbaum’s case. Even though the federal immigration agency chose not to extradite the perpetrator, it is clear that his actions meet the criteria for moral turpitude.
References
Andorno, R. (2020). Vulnerability and the sale of human organs: A global challenge. Jura Gentium, 17(1), 31–41.
Epting, Q. (2020). Organ harvesting. Anti-Human Trafficking Intelligence Initiative.
Gonzalez, J., Garijo, I., & Sanchez, A. (2020). Organ Trafficking and migration: A bibliometric analysis of an untold story. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(9), 1–11.
Lerner, C. S. (2021). Crimes involving moral turpitude: The constitutional and persistent immigration law doctrine. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 44(1), 71–144.
O’Regan, K. C. (2021). International organ trafficking: In brief. Congressional Research Service.
The Department of Justice. (2022). 1934. Appendix D — Grounds for judicial deportation. The United States Department of Justice Archives.
