Reasonableness is the load-bearing wall of the legal system — negligence, self-defence, harassment law, and constitutional equality all run on it. But the "reasonable person" is a fiction, and what counts as reasonable is shaped by class, culture, gender, and professional habit. Drawing on Mayo Moran's work on the reasonable person and Victoria Nourse's argument that the standard was never a person at all, this episode asks how much subjective judgment hides inside supposedly objective tests, why courts adjust the baseline for children and physical disability but not mental illness, and what a 19,000-ruling study of French child-custody decisions says about whether you can predict a case better by knowing the judge than by knowing the law.
Key sources:
• Mayo Moran, The Reasonable Person: A Conceptual Biography in Comparative Perspective, Lewis & Clark Law Review Vol. 14:4 (2010) — https://www.lclark.edu/live/files/7230-lcb144art1moranpdf
• Victoria Nourse, After the Reasonable Man: Getting Over the Subjectivity/Objectivity Question, 11 New Crim. L. Rev. 33 — https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2133&context=facpub
• Spamann, Klöhn, Jamin, Khanna, Liu, Mamidi, Morell & Reidel, Judges in the Lab: No Precedent Effects, No Common/Civil Law Differences, Journal of Legal Analysis Vol. 13, Issue 1 (published 2021-03-23) — https://academic.oup.com/jla/article/13/1/110/6180994
Episode 5951 — myweirdprompts.com/n/5951 (permanent short link: myweirdprompts.com/564687)