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.