Informed Consent
How did the Delhi High Court rule regarding adolescents' rights to consensual relationships in a recent POCSO case?
Justice Singh upheld a trial court decision acquitting a man under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. In February 2020, the court dismissed the prosecution's appeal against the trial court order, noting the prosecutrix had categorically stated that her relationship with the accused was with her consent. This significant ruling emphasizes that adolescents' consensual romantic relationships should be recognized rather than criminalized. The Delhi High Court's stance suggests laws should evolve to protect such consensual relationships while maintaining safeguards against exploitation, highlighting that young people's emotional connections are natural human experiences.
Watch clip answer (00:25m)
WION
01:46 - 02:12
What is Justice Jasmeet Singh's view on adolescent romantic relationships?
Justice Jasmeet Singh of the Delhi High Court affirmed that adolescents have the right to engage in consensual romantic relationships without criminalization. He emphasized that love is a fundamental human experience, and young individuals deserve to form emotional connections free from exploitation and abuse. While acknowledging the importance of legal age of consent for protecting minors, Justice Singh advocated that the law should evolve to acknowledge and respect these relationships as long as they are consensual and free from coercion. He stressed that the focus should be on preventing exploitation rather than punishing innocent love.
Watch clip answer (00:42m)WION
00:25 - 01:08
What are the key defense strategies in a rape case like Diddy's?
There are two primary defense strategies in a rape case. First is denying participation in the sex acts, but this won't be effective for Diddy since many encounters were reportedly recorded and witnessed by his entourage. The second and more likely strategy will be arguing that the acts were consensual between adults, regardless of how unusual they may have been. The prosecution will counter by trying to prove force, fraud, or coercion was involved, arguing that victims were drugged or coerced and therefore couldn't consent. This distinction between consensual acts and sex trafficking will be central to the case when it goes to trial.
Watch clip answer (01:20m)
Law&Crime Network
13:59 - 15:19
What happened to Brianne Dressen when she volunteered for COVID-19 vaccine trials, and what legal action is she taking?
Brianne Dressen, a healthy school teacher and mother of two, volunteered for COVID-19 vaccine trials but experienced severe neurological complications following her participation. Her traumatic experience led her to file a groundbreaking lawsuit against AstraZeneca that could potentially transform vaccine safety protocols and accountability measures. Her case highlights critical issues surrounding vaccine transparency, medical responsibility, and the challenges faced by individuals who suffer vaccine-related injuries. The lawsuit aims to address the need for better informed consent processes and reform in vaccine safety protocols, representing a significant legal challenge that could have far-reaching implications for the vaccine industry.
Watch clip answer (00:16m)
VICE News
00:38 - 00:54