Talk:Reasonable person

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticisms of the Reasonable Person Standard?[edit]

I'm hoping that we can open a section for criticisms of the reasonable person standard. I think that the use of the alleged reasonable person standard against a defendant violates that defendant's right to due process because nobody knows what the one or more necessary or sufficient criteria are that define the reasonable person standard in order to satisfy such criteria for (1) possession of a reasonable person standard or (2) development of a reasonable person standard for possession of a reasonable person standard in order for such reasonable person standard to be used against a defendant in order to adjudicate whether or not a defendant was negligent. I've read that when it comes to the reasonable person standard, one concern was equality: Which I presume is a reference to equal protection under the law (I don't remember the article). --75.149.204.97 (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC) (Dennis Francis Blewett)[reply]

Here is an equal protection argument I have from a motion to vacate my U.S. Dept. of Education student loan that I am drafting: "...I think the use of the alleged reasonable person standard against a defendant by an adjudicator violates that defendant’s right to equal protection under the law because the adjudicator would be partial to the alleged reasonable person of the alleged reasonable person standard; the adjudicator would not consider anyone’s behavior to be nor have been reasonable unless the behavior is what the alleged reasonable person would or would have displayed (as alleged by the adjudicator) under the same circumstances; the judge would be pleasuring himself or herself via satisfying one or more biological imperatives of his or her’s via his or her power to extort one or more things from a defendant via the judge overcoming one or more civil protections of the defendant that prevent extortion via the judge violating one or more of a defendant’s civil rights [such as a defendant’s 14th amendment rights, as per the Constitution of the United States of America] via deception of one or more others and/or agreement with one or more others that one or more of the adjudicator’s claims and/or actions [such as the adjudicator adversarially discriminating against a defendant with the alleged reasonable person standard via the adjudicator using the alleged reasonable person of the alleged reasonable person standard as an ad hoc rhetorical device (aka “legal fiction”) to claim that a defendant has been negligent relative to one or more acts] via sophistry via the need for the adjudicator to satisfy one or more biological imperatives; the alleged reasonable person of the alleged reasonable person standard does not exist (except as a legal fiction) in order for the alleged reasonable person of the alleged reasonable person standard to be used as an objective standard in order for an adjudicator to adjudicate whether or not a defendant was negligent relative to one or more acts; no one can qualify via proof the existence of the reasonable person of the reasonable person standard; there was not, is not, nor will there be any evidence to the contrary..." --75.149.204.97 (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC) (Dennis Francis Blewett)[reply]
Here is one more criticism from my draft: "...Another problem with the reasonable person standard that I do not see mentioned in literature nor the Internet is that no one can be sure of what is reasonable in an effort to make a reasonable person standard for adjudicating over persons. For instance, despite any presumptions or perceptions to the contrary, the philosophical thought experiment that an adjudicator might have been and might be deceived as to what is reasonable behavior from a person in society in order for the adjudicator to develop the reasonable person standard for use is being asserted..." --75.149.204.97 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC) (Dennis Francis Blewett)[reply]

Alternation between 'he' and 'she'[edit]

I found the repeated alternation between 'he' and 'she' distracting and unnecessary 202.74.220.129 (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's the way it is. Present style in English is to refer to a generic person with the female pronoun "she". The "he" you seem to be having problems with is the older, pre-modern style of using a generic male pronoun to refer to the generic person. It would have been "she" througnout the entire article, but for the fact the any "he" you find is in a quote. Foofighter20x (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your bizarre notions are incorrect, educate yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.232.208 (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia policy is to go by whatever usage the original author used.Greg Bard 00:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reasonable woman[edit]

regarding sexual harassment and the vulnerability of women: either provide a citation to support the text in the article, or kindly remove the text. as this is presumably a matter that has received non-trivial attention in the last 2 decades in the US, a citation ought not be difficult to find, if in fact the information given is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.81.47 (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I back this. This concept seems very, very controversial, and I've personally never encountered it. It needs to either be cited, and properly contextualised as outré, or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.28.94 (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

various versions of the reasonable person[edit]

I've spent some time studying the concept of the reasonable person, and I'd like it if people could find sources as to what I've spent time learning and reading about the reasonable person. As far as I understand, there are at least three versions of the reasonable person.

  1. The "reasonable person" as put forward by the defense,
  2. the "reasonable person" as put forward by prosecution or the plaintiff, and
  3. the "reasonable person" that occurs in court.
  • The defense version of the "reasonable person" is a person who (1) can do no wrong, (2) has a perfect defense to every allegation, (3) is the law. The reasonable person is, for a lack of a better description, God. The reasonable person is the truth. So, I agree with a prior author on this page commenting that the "reasonable person" is never negligent. In a criminal case, a defendant might ask, "What would a reasonable person say the defense to this criminal allegation is?"
  • The prosecution version of the "reasonable person" is more of a supernatural version. This version of the reasonable person has the ability to incarnate in unreasonable people, thus making them "reasonable." So, it might be argued that it's possible for a police officer to become a "reasonable" police officer, thus encompassing the existence if having the incarnate form of the reasonable person: This tends to be observed when seeing people talking about arrests, probable cause, and whether or not a police officer can ever be a "reasonable" police officer and make a "reasonable" arrest. If you spend time thinking about it, if a reasonable person can generate a reasonable defense to any allegation, then it's never reasonable to make an arrest (as defense might argue). But prosecution might argue that if a peace officer acts as a reasonable person, then it's possible for the peace officer to make a reasonable arrest as a reasonable peace officer: However, I equate this with a supernatural thesis, whereby prosecution claims that somehow a police officer can become the incarnate form of the "reasonable person." I equate the "reasonable person" with God, which might be an oversimplification. So, prosecution claims that a police officer can become God and make an arrest. Perhaps I can clarify this issue: (1) A cop sees someone committing antisocial behavior, (2) somehow the cop became God incarnate and upgraded to the status of "reasonable cop," thus embodying God (3) the cop believes he, as a reasonable person, has probable cause to arrest the person for anti-social behavior and label it as a criminal act, such as disturbing the peace.
    • Wermsker put the issue between the defense and prosecution issue, I think, well by saying this in his comment: "'Is a reasonable person defined in accordance with a particular normative ethical commitment or in accordance with an empirically observed practice or perception?'"
  • The third version of the reasonable person is the reasonable person that occurs at court: Assuming a flawless motion for discovery and proper arguments are made by defense and prosecution so that all evidence is available at trial, then all that is necessary is for the defendant to state at trial what the facts of the case are (and it while stating the facts that the defendant becomes the "reasonable person").

One of the things I've found in studying the concept of the reasonable person is that it is in no way best described as a community standard. It's not well described by claiming there is ever such as a thing as a "reasonable" professional, officer, woman, man, etc... Those are basically all reasonable person incarnation claims, whereby to say there is such thing as a "reasonable professional" is to claim that a professional can embody the reasonable person in the incarnate form. You might as well be saying Dr. God is the only reasonable doctor that could ever exist. The Clapham omnibus stuff is garbage. The reasonable person is not a community standard. It's not the average man. --Cyberman (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In practice that is exactly what it is. There is no definitive, unbiased way to decide what is or is not reasonable. It will vary according to time and place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.79.206 (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a disinterested party (I'm the brother of the defendant), it would not be appropriate for me to add an edit or a citation, but would anyone care to have a look at R v Morhall [1] with regard to Lord Diplock's opinions on this? Philculmer (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Morhall.php

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Reasonable person. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reasonable_person&oldid=1209984971"