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...

While, it would be ridiculous and patently racist to suggest that someone could respond to people of a different ethnicity in a hostile manner without any type of provocation, one could easily envision a situation where words that would appear as idle threats in another scenario would seem more threatening because of a background racial dispute. Ethnicity could also impact the reasonableness of within-ethnic group interactions, because different ethnic groups have different social norms. Because social norms dictate what actions are reasonable or unreasonable, behavior that might be unreasonable by members of one ethnic group may seem imminently reasonable to members of another ethnic group.
Finally, when considering whether a person is acting in a prudent manner, it is important to consider a person's age. Medical science supports the notion that the brain is not mature until a person reaches their early-to-mid-20s. However, people are tried as adults in criminal court years before that time. To judge whether an 18-year-old acted in a reasonably prudent manner, it is important to compare him to other 18-year-olds, rather than expecting his behavior to reflect brain development that has yet to occur. Likewise, when people enter into old age, they often lose some of their reasoning ability, and this loss of reasoning can impact even those adults who do not suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's, which could make it impossible for them to comport to the standard of prudence for a reasonable adult. Therefore, it seems clear that determining whether someone acted as a reasonable person has to consider the actor's age.

Works Cited

Vaughan v. Menlove, 3 Bing. N.C. 467, 132 E.R. 490 (C.P.) (1837)