Reasonable Person? Anyone Who Is

¶ … Reasonable Person? Anyone who is familiar with the criminal law is familiar with the idea of the reasonable person. This fictitious person is the standard against which other behavior is judged. If a person has behaved like a reasonable person would have in the same situation, then that person's behavior is not going to be considered criminal behavior, even if the behavior would have violated a statute in another scenario.

On the other hand, if a person behaved in a way that the individual believed was reasonable and rational, but that does not meet the standards of the reasonable person, then he or she can be found criminally liable. Therefore, one can see how important it is to determine the qualities of the reasonable person.

Should the reasonable person standard reflect an individual's characteristics, such as age, gender, and ethnicity, or should the reasonable person standard be more objective, and be based on what the majority of society would consider reasonable behavior? The answer to this question is complex; the majority of society determines what laws to enforce, which would suggest that if the majority of society would find one's behavior to be unreasonable, then one should face criminal liability for that behavior.

However, that view ignores the reality of how the law evolves, and how dominant groups can use social norms and social pressure to perpetuate social inequities. Allowing these dominant groups to determine what behavior is reasonable, not only for members of their peer groups, but for all individuals, would seem like an invitation to criminalize people simply for being different from the norm. As a result, the reasonable person standard must consider individual characteristics.

The reasonable person standard has a long history in English criminal law, but actually did not begin in a criminal context. Instead, the reasonable person standard was introduced in the context of a tort case in 1837. In Vaughan v. Menlove, 3 Bing. N.C. 467, 132 E.R. 490 (C.P.) (1837), the Court decided that it was impossible to judge a defendant's subjective intent, and that, instead, the fact finder would have to determine whether or not a defendant had acted with the same caution as a man with ordinary prudence.

That decision was a landmark one, because it marked the beginning of the reasonable man standard. Before that time, fact finders may have been applying their own version of the reasonable man standard, because it is almost impossible to divorce one's own judgment from the determination of whether another person was exercising his or her judgment. However, once that case was decided, the reasonable man standard quickly developed into a rule of law, and became the benchmark for measuring the appropriateness or inappropriateness of certain actions.

However, as the reasonable man standard moved outside of the realm of tort law and into the realm of criminal law, it quickly became apparent that there were flaws in the reasonable man standard. First and foremost among the flaws is that reasonably prudent people rarely find themselves in situations in which they would be called upon to take a possibly-illegal action. That distinction was important, because the laws have historically been written and judged by a single group of people; upper-class and upper-middle class white males.

While there has been a modern trend towards diversity in both the legislature and the judiciary, the reality is that white males of some financial means still dominate the legal process. However, what may be a reasonable and prudent action for a white male of means may not be a reasonable and prudent action for a person of a different background. Therefore, it seems clear that the reasonable person standard must take into account different characteristics of the individual defendant.

However, it seems equally clear that if a court is required to consider every single aspect that makes a defendant unique, then it will be forced to abandon the reasonable person standard and return to the days of trying to determine the subjective intent of each defendant. As a result, the reasonable person standard must take in a sufficient number of characteristics to reflect that reasonable people from different backgrounds could respond differently to the same situation, without allowing every single aspect of a person's background to influence that determination.

One thing that a reasonable person standard would have to include would be the gender of the defendant. As much as people might want to pretend otherwise, the fact is that women and men have incredibly different experiences as they go through their lives. Being physically weaker and far more vulnerable to sexual assaults than men, a prudent woman might react to events in a way that a prudent man would not react to the same events.

For example, a prudent man who noticed a strange man following him would reasonably fear being mugged or robbed, but a prudent man who noticed a strange man following her would fear being raped. Although being mugged certainly would not be classified as pleasant, it is unlikely that any person would liken that experience to being raped. Therefore, one could expect a reasonable woman to respond in a different manner than a reasonable man would respond in the same situation.

Moreover, because women are at greater risk of incurring harm through physical violence, they are more likely to be aware of potentially dangerous situations. A woman is more likely to notice if a stranger is following her. Of course, this means that a reasonable woman is more likely to wrongfully interpret that someone who is coincidentally following the same path that she is following is actually following her.

As a result, it is easy to see how a reasonable man and a reasonable woman might respond very differently to the perceived threat of a physical attack, which can be important in determining whether criminal charges should be pressed against a defendant, the degree of those charges, and, if convicted, the appropriate sentence. Just like gender impacts judgment, it is important to recognize that ethnicity can also impact judgment. England has a long history of colonialism and racial exploitation, which has had an indelible impact on people.

Though considering ethnicity too strongly would seem to reinforce inappropriate stereotypes, the reality of interracial tensions and disputes means that a single person confronted by a group of people of a different ethnicity may reasonably respond to them in a different manner than they might respond to a group of people of.