In a short paragraph, define the procedural due process and substantive due process and clearly explain the differences between them.

Ageneral requirement for informed consent is that no informed consent may include any exculpatory language. exculpatory language is that which waives or appears to waive any of the subject’s legal rights or releases or appears to release those conducting the research from liability for negligence. which of the following statements in a consent form is an example of exculpatory language? taking part in the research is voluntary, but if you choose to take part, you waive the right to legal redress for any research-related injuries.your participation in this research is voluntary. if you choose not to participate, or change your mind later, your decision will not affect your relationship with the researcher or your right to other services that you may be eligible for.in the event of any distress you may have related to this research, you will be given access to appropriate resources.the researcher may stop you from taking part in this research without your consent if you experience side effects that make your emotional condition worse. if you become too emotionally distressed during the research, you may have to drop out.

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.

What is political freedom? how is it different from economic freedom?