This group research project will give students from the
University of South Florida St. Petersburg (USFSP) and University of Tetovo
(UT) the opportunity to work together on a comparative legal research project
comparing decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court
of the United States involving similar legal questions.
This comparative legal research project is designed to
introduce students to legal research and writing, and to better understanding
of the ECtHR in comparison to the SCOTUS.
Group 1: “Opposite Sides of the Ocean, the Same Fight” (Reproductive Rights):
Selma Ademi, Rebecca Nero, Nicole Oyola, and Naya Payne
Group 2: “Freedom of Expression”:
Devi Mukja, Reese Remington, Christian Resnikoff, and Jenna Sierra
Group 3: “Freedom of Association”:
Jalessa Blackshear, Vjollca Emini, Michael Oeser, and Alec Silvera
Group 4: “To Torture, Or Not To Torture?”:
Julianne Baschuk, Eden Fhima, Veton Jakupi, and Seth Will
Group 5: “The Death Penalty: Cruel and Unusual Punishment”:
Weston Epps, Artin Hasipi, Lauren Lewchuk, and Hannah Murphy
Group 6: “ Rights of the Disabled in State Care”:
Samantha Fiore, Spencer Gomez, Nedreta Jusufi, and Bailey Meyer
Group 7: “The Right to Marry in the U.S. and in the Council of Europe”:
Stephen Fleming, Lacey Kozlowski, Elizabeth Manning, and Artina Mustafi
Group 8: “Right to a Fair Trial”:
Isaiah Castle, Matthew Franzese, Sherette Mills, Diellza Selimi
Here are the 8 groups and their research poster abstracts:
Group 1: “Opposite Sides of the
Ocean, the Same Fight” (Reproductive Rights):
Selma Ademi, Rebecca Nero, Nicole
Oyola, and Naya Payne
Abortion is a controversial subject and it is one that has
been brought into the legal landscape for quite some time. Laws and statutes
being made to either advance or deter access to abortion. In some countries
abortion is freely accessible and then in others there is absolutely no access
to the service at all. In our research we examine two countries, the United
States and Ireland. We observe the landmark decisions of each of their courts
pertaining to abortion access under the United States’ 14th Amendment Due
Process Clause -- right to privacy and Ireland’s European Convention on Human
Rights Section 1 Article 8 -- respect for private and family life. We examine
the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in Roe v. Wade (1973) and
the European Court of Human Rights ruling in A, B and C v. Ireland (2010). We
will be researching reproductive rights in the United States, what rights were
established before and after Roe. Doing the same in looking at Ireland,
researching what access to reproductive rights and the legal landscape before
and after A, B and C. We observe the different features of the ECHR and the
SCOTUS by comparing and contrasting, also observing how these similarities and
differences impact case law. The question we seek to answer with our research
is, “Is abortion access under the right to privacy, better protected under the
ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States or the ruling of the European
Court of Human Rights?”
Group 2: “Freedom of Expression”:
Devi Mukja, Reese Remington,
Christian Resnikoff, and Jenna Sierra
The question of what does freedom of expression mean, and
how deeply does freedom of expression extend, is a question of not just legal
but moral and philosophical ramification that has been questioned for ages, and
one of the many areas in which the legal environments of both the United States
and Europe indirectly debate. For the United States, expressive speech has been
debated and curbed heavily in the name of protecting the interest of the
greater public, but one aspect of individual expression that has continually
been defended and protected by the American legislative and judicial sphere is
the right of an individual to express their own personal beliefs. In the United
States, this freedom of expression that we possess often goes hand in hand with
another right we’re afforded in the Bill of Rights, freedom of religious
worship. In the possession of both of these rights, freedom to outwardly
practice your religion and express yourself in any given way deemed appropriate
to your religion has always been a cornerstone of American life. A good showing
of the ways American religious expression is protected is through the
comparison of two different cases, one ruled by the Supreme Court, the other by
the European Court of Human Rights. The cases of West Virginia State Board of
Education v. Barnette in the US and Religious Communities of Jehovah’s
Witnesses v. Azerbaijan are compared and contrasted to show the different means
and levels of protection awarded to religious and expressive conduct of
personal belief. We found in our comparison of these two cases that American
religious liberty and the outward expression of such is more definitively
protected than in that of Europe. Though the practice and belief of religion is
undoubtedly protected, one’s ability and right to express their religious
beliefs is curbed in the name of preventing discriminatory and otherwise
unsavory behavior. In the United States, even in the name of patriotism during
wartime, the right of one to do as they will in the name of their religious
beliefs is well protected, while under the ECHR, it is not quite as cut and
dry.
Group 3: “Freedom of Association”:
Jalessa Blackshear, Vjollca Emini,
Michael Oeser, and Alec Silvera
Freedom of Association seems like a simple concept, yet as
it clashes with other individual rights and liberties, the issue becomes far
more complex. A major hinderance in examining the balancing of these interests
is the relatively malleable value places upon them across societies. Every
aspect of a given societies culture, history, religion or religions,
ethnicities, and a host of other factors come into play when assessing the
approach the society takes. Our research has been narrowed in focus to consider
the value placed on expressive association by the United States Supreme Court
(SCOTUS) and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Using a
comparative research method, we have examined judicial rulings regarding
expressive association from these two entities. After evaluating the SCOTUS
decision Boy Scouts of America v Dale (2000) and the ECHR decision in ASLEF v
UK (2007) we have concluded that while the cultural and political differences
between these societies are significant, they have arrived at similar places when
it comes to the value of expressive association. Freedom of Association works
both ways when it comes to expression. While the government may not prevent
individuals from associating with whom they choose, it also may not force them
to associate with anyone they do not wish to associate with.
Group 4: “To Torture, Or Not To
Torture?”: Julianne Baschuk, Eden Fhima, Veton Jakupi, and Seth Will
The purpose of our research was to
understand the classification of torture when discussing interrogatory practices
under the laws of both the United States and the European Court of Human
Rights. Our outcome is to present a clear definition of the legality of using
enhanced interrogation measures under the judiciary interpretation of the
United States Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. The
examination of Rasul v Rumsfeld (2009) and Brown v Mississippi (1936) under the
Supreme Court and Ireland v United Kingdom (1977) under the European Court to
construct this definition. The Supreme Court and the European Court of Human
Rights have held mirrored understanding as to the prohibition of enhanced
interrogation strategies as being classified as torture. The Supreme Court has
held these acts as violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourth Amendment,
and also as a violation to the Eighth Amendment. The European Court has upheld
the European Convention on the Prohibition of Torture, as enhanced
interrogation has been cited to be an act unfounded by Articles One, Two, and
Seven. Enhanced interrogation techniques are classified in both these regions
as violations to the prohibition of torture, but through legal loopholes
regarding extradition to non-territorial holdings, like Guantanamo Bay, such
prohibited actions are still utilized by these nations. This presents an issue
requiring further attention, as both legal systems are in need of reworking in
order to fully enforce the desired intent of such prohibition against torture
in the process of undergoing an interrogation.
Group 5: “The Death Penalty: Cruel
and Unusual Punishment”: Weston Epps,
Artin Hasipi, Lauren Lewchuk, and Hannah Murphy
The death penalty and the concept of torture are subjects by
which have been developed, doctored, and remedied over hundreds of years. It is
known that the death penalty is a subject by which has been present within our
criminal justice system since the transcription of the Old Testimate. Although
none of us can truly determine the nature of society during these ancient
times, we can assume that morality has progressed intensely since then. We have
witnessed a growth in human rights, considerations, and the judicial system as
a whole. Multiple European and American cases have been compared as well as
contrasted in an attempt to decipher this evolution. Both American and European
histories regarding capital punishment and torture were magnified through this
study for further clarity that there was a distinct metamorphosis. We partnered
with students from the University of Tetovo in Macedonia as an attempt to
further understand European history, morals, and justice. We came together as a
group to fulfill the goal of comparing the evolution of cruel and unusual
punishment from both an American and European descent. Although it is evident
that we, as a race, are ever-expanding as a society, it was discovered through
this study that time is a solvent to immorality. We concluded that through
court cases, civil rights, and the recognition of individual freedom, the death
penalty has increasingly become the last resort.
Group 6: “ Rights of the Disabled in State Care”:
Samantha Fiore, Spencer Gomez,
Nedreta Jusufi, and Bailey Meyer
In this legal research project, we will be analyzing the
rights of the disabled in state care according to the Supreme Court of the
United States (SCOTUS) and the European Convention On Human Rights (ECHR). Both
SCOTUS and ECHR have a foundation of acts, articles, and clauses that protect
the rights of the disabled. The main Articles of the ECHR that we will
befocusing on are Article 3, the Prohibition of Torture or Inhumane or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Article 13, Right to an Effective Remedy.
We will also be looking intoAmendment 8 of the United States Constitution, the
ban on cruel and unusual punishment, which contains the Cruel and Unusual
Punishment Clause. In addition we will be looking at the CivilRights of
Institutionalized Persons Act as well as the Council of Europe to gain a better
understanding and overview on the rights of the disabled.L.R v. North Macedonia
2015 and O’Connor v. Donaldson 422 US 563 (1975) are two landmark cases
that we will be analyzing that pertain to the above articles and amendments
mentioned. In reviewing both of these landmark cases, we will address the
legal issue of the entrance and treatment of disabled persons in state care.
These cases will dive deeper into themore broad spectrum of the prohibition of
torture for mentally ill or physically disabled personsand the respective
articles and amendments that each case covers.Finally, we will discuss the
implications of these landmark cases when it comes toconstitutional law and the
social justice issues that have arisen in these cases. Furthermore, we will
also provide our biggest takeaways that we have learned through our research in
hopes to educate the community on the ever changing rights of the disabled
Group 7: “The Right to Marry in the
U.S. and in the Council of Europe”:
Stephen Fleming, Lacey Kozlowski, Elizabeth
Manning, and Artina Mustafi
The Supreme Court of the United States and the European
Court of Human Rights for the Council of Europe have seen similar cases
regarding same-sex marriage but their rulings have shown a difference in
culture and governmental proceedings. Throughout human history, the definition
of marriage has shifted as society has evolved, from coverture to equal, loving
relationships but still not everyone has the freedom to marry. Obergefell v.
Hodges (2015) in the Supreme Court, and Chapin and Charpentier v. France (2016)
in the European Court of Human Rights are very similar in their facts, but come
to different conclusions. Obergefell legalized same-sex marriage throughout all
50 states, while Chapin and Charpentier only recognized that the European
Convention of Human Rights does not limit marriage to opposite-sex couples,
leaving the final judgement to legalize same-sex marriage to member States.
While the judgements were different, there were still similar thoughts via the
dissenting opinion from Justice Scalia saying the Court overstepped her bounds
by deciding something that should’ve been left to the States to decide through
legislative means. These Courts are meant to protect individual rights though
through different actions, they’ve protected different kinds of individual
rights- the right of the people, or the right of the People.
Group 8: “Right to a Fair Trial”:
Isaiah Castle, Matthew Franzese,
Sherette Mills, Diellza Selimi
The 6th Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal
defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay,
the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know
who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.
It has been most visibly tested in a series of cases involving terrorism, but
much more often figures in cases that involve (for example) jury selection or
the protection of witnesses, including victims of sex crimes as well as witnesses
in need of protection from retaliation. The core principles of the 6th
amendment translate clearly to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human
Rights. This presentation uses a U.S. Supreme Court case, Gideon v. Wainwright
and compares it to a case from the European Convention on Human Rights, Selmani
and Others v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
