2007-03-22 14:20:48 · 3 answers · asked by lankybre 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
It's a common legal fiction.
The "resonable person" standard is way to set an objective threshold for many issues and claims. It's applied whenever an objective, rather than subjective, standard is required.
The court evaluates the action or belief based on what a hypohetical "reasonly prudent person in the community" would have done. It's legal fiction because such a person doesn't really exist -- it's just a legal extrapolation of what the judge thinks the average reasonable person should do.
2007-03-22 14:32:02 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They have this so called "guy" in a closet and they call him a reasonable and prudent person. When a Case of law comes up, they bring this person out of the closet to see what this "reasonable and prudent person" would do.
This law or standard has been around for a very long time. If say someone broke into your house and you were at home, what would this "person do"??? Probably defend themselves and get out of the house. If the person on trial, defended themselves, then stood over the criminal and emptied their 9MM, that is not what a " reasonable and prudent person" would have done so, you would probably be found guilty.
2007-03-22 21:31:16 · answer #2 · answered by bigmikejones 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The actions of a "reasonable man" is ascertained by a judge. It is revealed in the law from the bosom of a judge and by the doctrine of precedent..
Sounds reliable doesn't it.
2007-03-22 21:49:55 · answer #3 · answered by Icy Gazpacho 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋