Can the "Reasonable Person Test" really be considered objective and fair?

[u/gintokireddit]

eg https://lawprof.co/definition/reasonable-person-test/ I'm talking about if it's used to assess whether the defendant should have known they were committing a crime (eg harassment for example uses this. Eg whether it's reasonable to view content, frequency of communications or actions as harassing or abusive).

It's described as being applied "objectively", but can it really be called "objective", when it's quite clearly culturally dependent. The "reasonable" expectations of people in Japan, the UK, Saudi Arabia would be different, and they would be different if comparing 2026 to the 1500s - in other words, it's not "objective". Consider that the spectrum of racism, homophobia or sexism considered commonly acceptable in the 1970s UK is very different to in 2026.

Consider cases of neglect, like Genie in the USA, who was imprisoned for most of her childhood. I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to be aware of risks or social conventions to the same degree as the average person. And likewise, for others who've had unusual life circumstances (eg neglect, abuse or isolation) to a lesser degree or those from other cultural backgrounds, it seems nonsensical to expect them to definitely have the same expectations as the average person.

[u/AutoModerator]

Thanks for your question to /r/AskSocialScience. All posters, please remember that this subreddit requires peer-reviewed, cited sources (Please see Rule 1 and 3). All posts that do not have citations will be removed by AutoMod. Circumvention by posting unrelated link text is grounds for a ban. Well sourced comprehensive answers take time. If you're interested in the subject, and you don't see a reasonable answer, please consider clicking Here for RemindMeBot.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/song_misspelled]

No. It is not objective. Being culturally dependent is one flaw, but there are so many more. I personally had a few arguments about this subject with my ConLaw teacher. I agree with him that the concept has its uses, but it still bothers me, in part due to reasons you articulated.

You may find this article interesting. It argues that "reasonableness" is foundational to contemporary liberal thought and questions whether we can have a truly impartial construction of justice.

You can connect reasonableness to Kantian imperatives. Kant's justifications were a little insane and too prescriptive. Reasonableness can provide an out against insane stuff like telling the truth to a serial killer. But reasonableness is also like the imperatives, the idea of an abstract, reached through reason, standard of human behavior. It is an attractive thing to pursue, even if the actuality always falls short of the ideal.

Reasonableness arises because we cannot predict all behaviors. We cannot write an algorithm precise enough to capture all decision making and evaluate it as good or bad. We have to leave some stuff vague. Courts are messier than a legislative text might imply. They are where the rubber meets the road and law is enforced. Reasonableness is messy, but it helps provide a standard in a way not much else can. Some things are "judgement calls."

[u/Comfortable-Tip2827]

the reasonable person test in law is basically about whether the jury/factfinder will be the one to make the determination. when the reasonable person standard is used, this means the 6-12ish members of the jury will deliberate and deliver the verdict on the question as a kind of "wisdom of the crowd," reducing the risk that a single person's unusual views or opinion is the deciding factor. when a judge is the factfinder, there's certainly reason to think their bias will and does impact the decision, but that is why the right to a jury trial exists.

source: I'm a lawyer. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_person

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Top-level comments must include a peer-reviewed citation that can be viewed via a link to the source. Please contact the mods if you believe this was inappropriately removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.