David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (2):137-162 (2008)
Criminal law commonly requires judges and juries to decide whether defendants acted reasonably. Nevertheless, issues of reasonableness fall into two distinct categories: (1) where reasonableness concerns events and states, including risks of which an actor is conscious, that can be justly assessed without regard to the actorâs individual traits, and (2) where reasonableness concerns culpable mental states and emotions that cannot justly be assessed without reference to the actorâs capacities. This distinction is significant because, while the reasonable person by which category-1 cases are assessed is a disembodied and impersonal ideal that consists of nothing but the uncompromising values of the jurisdiction, the reasonable person by which category-2 cases are measured must necessarily incorporate some of an actorâs individual traits or risk blaming the blameless. Courts and commentators have thus far approached the task of individualizing or subjectivizing reasonableness in category 2 by trying to determine in advance which individual traits are generally relevant and which are not. I propose an alternative approach that, in addition to applying to negligence and voluntary manslaughter cases alike, derives its content from the social practice of blaming. I propose that a reasonable person in category-2 cases consists of every physical, psychological, and emotional trait an actor possesses, with one exceptionâthe exception being that he possesses proper respect for the values of the people of the state as reflected and incorporated in the statute at hand
|Keywords||Reasonable person Individualization Provocation Negligence Blame|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Nicole A. Vincent (2010). On the Relevance of Neuroscience to Criminal Responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (1):77-98.
Michael Moore & Heidi Hurd (2011). Punishing the Awkward, the Stupid, the Weak, and the Selfish: The Culpability of Negligence. [REVIEW] Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (2):147-198.
Douglas Husak (2011). Negligence, Belief, Blame and Criminal Liability: The Special Case of Forgetting. [REVIEW] Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (2):199-218.
Kenneth Simons (2011). When is Negligent Inadvertence Culpable? Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (2):97-114.
Similar books and articles
Michelle Ciurria (2011). Complicity and Criminal Liability in Rwanda: A Situationist Critique. Res Publica 17 (4):411-419.
Susan Dimock (2008). Reasonable Women in the Law. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11 (2):153-175.
C. D. & K. Haely (1999). Rape and the Reasonable Man. Law and Philosophy 18 (2):113-139.
James Boettcher (2004). What is Reasonableness? Philosophy and Social Criticism 30 (5-6):597-621.
Donald C. Hubin & Karen Haely (1999). Rape and the Reasonable Man. Law and Philosophy 18 (2):113 - 139.
P. S. (2003). Fitting the People They Are Meant to Serve: Reasonable Persons in the American Legal System. Law and Philosophy 22 (1):75-110.
Peter Westen (2007). Two Rules of Legality in Criminal Law. Law and Philosophy 26 (3):229-305.
Stephen Kershnar (2004). Respect for Persons and the Harsh Punishment of Criminals. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 18 (1):103-121.
Brenda Almond (2005). Reasonable Partiality in Professional Relationships. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 8 (1-2):155 - 168.
Added to index2010-08-10
Total downloads14 ( #115,725 of 1,102,699 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #182,643 of 1,102,699 )
How can I increase my downloads?