Essay on "Criminal Law Reasonable Person"

Essay 4 pages (1347 words) Sources: 1

[EXCERPT] . . . .

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… READ MORE

How to Reference "Criminal Law Reasonable Person" Essay in a Bibliography

Related Essays:

Criminal Law Argument One: Sharon Was Intoxicated Term Paper

Criminal Law

Argument One: Sharon was intoxicated at the time of the crime and therefore should not be found guilty of assault or battery.

The argument that Sharon's act is… read more

Term Paper 6 pages (1767 words) Sources: 6 Style: APA Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

Criminal Law and Property Term Paper

Criminal Law and Property

The crime that one would likely be charged with in the matter at hand is embezzlement. Embezzlement occurs when an individual misappropriates property while it is… read more

Term Paper 3 pages (721 words) Sources: 0 Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

Criminal Justice Although Jeff's Confession Is Voluntary Essay

Criminal Justice

Although Jeff's confession is voluntary in principle, there are certain facts of the case which make it inadmissible. The voluntary nature of the confession may be ascribed to… read more

Essay 5 pages (1709 words) Sources: 5 Style: APA Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

Criminal Justice Final Research Proposal

Criminal Justice Final

Define the "traditional" crime of murder as described in 2C:11-3 (a) 1 and 2, include the two relevant forms of criminal intent or criminal state of mind.… read more

Research Proposal 7 pages (2030 words) Sources: 0 Style: MLA Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

Criminal Justice Term Paper

Criminal Justice

Do you agree that for police action to be "just" it must recognize the rights of individuals while at the same time holding them accountable to the social… read more

Term Paper 2 pages (927 words) Sources: 2 Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>