says you. israel is a common law country and as you know, it is reasonable person in the position of the defendant. it certainly could and would be a "critical matter" if that person is devoutly religious.
A "reasonable" person is not devoutly religious
Reasonable person is a negligence standard anyway.
I posted it earlier, but it was buried in a long article. I think Keith was closest in trying to draw the distinction although he didn't hit on it precisely and was unaware of the existence of statutes addressing rape by fraud. But, absent the existence of a specific statute addressing it. The traditional formula for distinguishing legally valid from invalid consent in fraud cases is the dichotomy between fraud in the factum and fraud in the inducement.
The general rule is that if deception causes a misunderstanding as to the fact itself (fraud in the factum) there is no legally-recognized consent because what happened is not that for which consent was given; whereas consent induced by fraud is as effective as any other consent, so far as direct and immediate legal consequences are concerned, if the deception relates not to the thing done but merely to some collateral matter (fraud in the inducement). The authors maintain that the most striking illustration of this dichotomy occurs in rape law, supporting their thesis with the following example. If a doctor falsely tells a woman that sexual intercourse is necessary for her treatment and she agrees, no rape occurred because the doctor???s misrepresentation constitutes fraud in the inducement and the resulting consent is effective. On the other hand, if the doctor pretends to perform a routine pelvic exam and instead has sexual intercourse with the woman, then it is rape because this is fraud in the factum which vitiates her consent. The woman never consented to sexual intercourse because she was deceived about the act itself.
for those who care, the current candian postion on sexual assualt (including rape) by fraud or trick is summed up in the 1998 supreme court case of r v currier: (check out paragraphs 15-21 of the judgement.)
finally, israel may mean alot of different things (good and bad) to different people but i've never heard it described as a "shit hole" have you even visited that country?
(btw- let the record reflect that you just edited in after the fact that you hadn;t been there and that your shit-hole comment was a joke)
i've said all i can on this subject, i'm audi 5000
i can;t go tit-for-tat on these subjects anymore but what the hell does this case have to do with zionism?
if you bothered to read what i wrote, you'll see that i think the law is defective. the legal standard is messed up and needs to be adjusted. my hope is that it will.
to use this incident to vent your rage at zionism is just messed up.
l was not venting against Zionism, you or any other strutter.
Just pointing out.
i can;t go tit-for-tat on these subjects anymore but what the hell does this case have to do with zionism?
if you bothered to read what i wrote, you'll see that i think the law is defective. the legal standard is messed up and needs to be adjusted. my hope is that it will.
to use this incident to vent your rage at zionism is just messed up.
l was not venting against Zionism, you or any other strutter.
Just pointing out.
yeah right d*n. and computer science is a modern construct that has nothing to do with Judaism.
just pointing out.
Wow, that's some ignorant shit right there. Thank fuck I don't live in that shit hole. LOL
Yeah, that must mean I'm a nazi, lol.
If I wanted to live in a grungy desert I'd move to the IE.
haha no. the arte johnson german is ME actually, reacting to your helpful comment. and obv your aversion to living in Israel is based solely on the climate.
Wow, that's some ignorant shit right there. Thank fuck I don't live in that shit hole. LOL
Yeah, that must mean I'm a nazi, lol.
If I wanted to live in a grungy desert I'd move to the IE.
haha no. the arte johnson german is ME actually, reacting to your helpful comment. and obv your aversion to living in Israel is based solely on the climate.
says you. israel is a common law country and as you know, it is reasonable person in the position of the defendant. it certainly could and would be a "critical matter" if that person is devoutly religious.
A "reasonable" person is not devoutly religious
that may be your opinion but i disagree. a person can be devoutly religious and "reasonable". "reasonable" isn;t a synonym for "agnostic".
Not for purposes of this discussion. Yes, a devoutly religious person may also be generally reasonable. But a person whose views on what a sexual partner needs to disclose to him or her are profoundly informed by religion is not "reasonable" in this context. Unless one happens to share that person's religious devotion his or her expectations are deeply unreasonable.
says you. israel is a common law country and as you know, it is reasonable person in the position of the defendant. it certainly could and would be a "critical matter" if that person is devoutly religious.
A "reasonable" person is not devoutly religious
that may be your opinion but i disagree. a person can be devoutly religious and "reasonable". "reasonable" isn;t a synonym for "agnostic".
Not for purposes of this discussion. Yes, a devoutly religious person may also be generally reasonable. But a person whose views on what a sexual partner needs to disclose to him or her are profoundly informed by religion is not "reasonable" in this context. Unless one happens to share that person's religious devotion his or her expectations are deeply unreasonable.
I agree.
In NY, anyways, that consideration only enters the discussion when dealing with marriage. In the marriage context than lying about religion or orthodoxy is grounds for annulment. But in the context of a sex partner, no. In fact, I could see NY not extending the protection of the law to sex outside marriage as the state has an interest in supporting the institution and to do otherwise would run contrary to that interest..
choice of life partner or simply just sex partner can and often is informed and even dictated by religious belief. to try and isolate that key aspect of one's religion and remove it from the equation doesn;t work. there are a ton of religious beliefs that are objectively "unreasonable" i suppose but the objective legal test is predicated on the fact scenario at hand.
in short, i understand the israeli common law test as this:
is it is reasonable for a devout woman in theses circumstances (taking into account all that has been said and done) to consider the religion of her sex partner a matter of vital importance? if the answer is yes and he actively deceived her or merely omitted telling her because she wouldn;t have consented otherwise then the offence is completed.
choice of life partner or simply just sex partner can and often is informed and even dictated by religious belief. to try and isolate that key aspect of one's religion and remove it from the equation doesn;t work.
choice of life partner or simply just sex partner can and often is informed and even dictated by religious belief. to try and isolate that key aspect of one's religion and remove it from the equation doesn;t work. there are a ton of religious beliefs that are objectively "unreasonable" i suppose but the objective legal test is predicated on the fact scenario at hand.
in short, i understand the israeli common law test as this:
is it is reasonable for a devout woman in theses circumstances (taking into account all that has been said and done) to consider the religion of her sex partner a matter of vital importance? if the answer is yes and he actively deceived her or merely omitted telling her because she wouldn;t have consented otherwise then the offence is completed.
No, my logic is crisp and precise.
Your argument is a mess, as is the apparent state of the law in Israel.
How is one individual to know what totally subjective and potentially bizarre criteria possible sex partners regard as "critical"? And, putting the logistics aside, why should the law lend force to personal preferences where the subjective "critical matters" are totally without rational justification or are, in fact, rooted in bigotry? If "reasonableness" is not tied to some sort of objective analysis that makes sense to the nonreligious--i.e., HIV status is a "critical matter" because failure to disclose it can result in a real and tangible harm--then where are you going to draw the line? Are you going to place the courts in the role of determining what is and is not a real religion? And of determining what is and is not a "critical" element of each such religion? And what about determining sincerity of belief?
But we're talking about sex in this thread, not marriage. (I don't need marrying within one's faith explained to me.)
I have a very hard time believing that religion "often" informs people's decision to hit it.
Given that the big ones say you shouldn't be doing it outside marriage anyway, I can't see how it would be a deciding factor...the person would not be acting very "devout" in that case.
faux: the common law position does indeed seem to be a mess but your explanation of how the law as it stands now in Israel seems misconstrued for reasons i have already given.
bassie: to those who are devout how could you possibly doubt that? to me it means nada.
choice of life partner or simply just sex partner can and often is informed and even dictated by religious belief. to try and isolate that key aspect of one's religion and remove it from the equation doesn;t work. there are a ton of religious beliefs that are objectively "unreasonable" i suppose but the objective legal test is predicated on the fact scenario at hand.
in short, i understand the israeli common law test as this:
is it is reasonable for a devout woman in theses circumstances (taking into account all that has been said and done) to consider the religion of her sex partner a matter of vital importance? if the answer is yes and he actively deceived her or merely omitted telling her because she wouldn;t have consented otherwise then the offence is completed.
No, my logic is crisp and precise.
Your argument is a mess, as is the apparent state of the law in Israel.
How is one individual to know what totally subjective and potentially bizarre criteria possible sex partners regard as "critical"? And, putting the logistics aside, why should the law lend force to personal preferences where the subjective "critical matters" are totally without rational justification or are, in fact, rooted in bigotry? If "reasonableness" is not tied to some sort of objective analysis that makes sense to the nonreligious--i.e., HIV status is a "critical matter" because failure to disclose it can result in a real and tangible harm--then where are you going to draw the line? Are you going to place the courts in the role of determining what is and is not a real religion? And of determining what is and is not a "critical" element of each such religion? And what about determining sincerity of belief?
faux. how does reasonableness even apply. reasonableness is a negligence standard and this isn't a crime wih a negligent or recklessness degree? its just a question of fraud. and that leaves the fraud in the factum fraud in the inducement distinction. Lying about religion is fraud in inducement. No crime.
who ever said a religious person can't also be a hypocrite?
i hope you have a good weekend too, even though we never seem to see eye to eye on anything. out of curiosity why did you want to know what part of bc i come from?
choice of life partner or simply just sex partner can and often is informed and even dictated by religious belief. to try and isolate that key aspect of one's religion and remove it from the equation doesn;t work. there are a ton of religious beliefs that are objectively "unreasonable" i suppose but the objective legal test is predicated on the fact scenario at hand.
in short, i understand the israeli common law test as this:
is it is reasonable for a devout woman in theses circumstances (taking into account all that has been said and done) to consider the religion of her sex partner a matter of vital importance? if the answer is yes and he actively deceived her or merely omitted telling her because she wouldn;t have consented otherwise then the offence is completed.
No, my logic is crisp and precise.
Your argument is a mess, as is the apparent state of the law in Israel.
How is one individual to know what totally subjective and potentially bizarre criteria possible sex partners regard as "critical"? And, putting the logistics aside, why should the law lend force to personal preferences where the subjective "critical matters" are totally without rational justification or are, in fact, rooted in bigotry? If "reasonableness" is not tied to some sort of objective analysis that makes sense to the nonreligious--i.e., HIV status is a "critical matter" because failure to disclose it can result in a real and tangible harm--then where are you going to draw the line? Are you going to place the courts in the role of determining what is and is not a real religion? And of determining what is and is not a "critical" element of each such religion? And what about determining sincerity of belief?
faux. how does reasonableness even apply. reasonableness is a negligence standard and this isn't a crime wih a negligent or recklessness degree? its just a question of fraud. and that leaves the fraud in the factum fraud in the inducement distinction. Lying about religion is fraud in inducement. No crime.
Well, there are other legal contexts where it can apply, like sexual harassment, where some courts employ a reasonable woman standard in gauging the alleged harassment. That seems to be what our friend is arguing for--and what Israel's highest court has apparently adopted--but his concept of the reasonable person is laughably broad.
I agree that the idea probably shouldn't be imported at all here.
faux, let me crystal clear on this: i am not arguing for the current israeli position i am seeking to understand it as it is and how it has been applied to the case at hand. the test as i understand it (and i'm no israeli legal scholar nor have i read either case so i can;t be as certain as you) but the objective test is supposed to be applied in the circumstances that are presented...so a reasonbale person in that person;s shoes, but not that person. it means to share some of the qualities of the vicitm (perhaps sex, age, religion, etc)...
i am biased perhaps, but i like the current candain position. the fraud must go to the "nature and quality" of the sexual act itself.
if i understand the israeli law properly, it is terribly unjust in that it is vague and over-broad and just confuses matters.
choice of life partner or simply just sex partner can and often is informed and even dictated by religious belief. to try and isolate that key aspect of one's religion and remove it from the equation doesn;t work. there are a ton of religious beliefs that are objectively "unreasonable" i suppose but the objective legal test is predicated on the fact scenario at hand.
in short, i understand the israeli common law test as this:
is it is reasonable for a devout woman in theses circumstances (taking into account all that has been said and done) to consider the religion of her sex partner a matter of vital importance? if the answer is yes and he actively deceived her or merely omitted telling her because she wouldn;t have consented otherwise then the offence is completed.
No, my logic is crisp and precise.
Your argument is a mess, as is the apparent state of the law in Israel.
How is one individual to know what totally subjective and potentially bizarre criteria possible sex partners regard as "critical"? And, putting the logistics aside, why should the law lend force to personal preferences where the subjective "critical matters" are totally without rational justification or are, in fact, rooted in bigotry? If "reasonableness" is not tied to some sort of objective analysis that makes sense to the nonreligious--i.e., HIV status is a "critical matter" because failure to disclose it can result in a real and tangible harm--then where are you going to draw the line? Are you going to place the courts in the role of determining what is and is not a real religion? And of determining what is and is not a "critical" element of each such religion? And what about determining sincerity of belief?
faux. how does reasonableness even apply. reasonableness is a negligence standard and this isn't a crime wih a negligent or recklessness degree? its just a question of fraud. and that leaves the fraud in the factum fraud in the inducement distinction. Lying about religion is fraud in inducement. No crime.
Well, there are other legal contexts where it can apply, like sexual harassment, where some courts employ a reasonable woman standard in gauging the alleged harassment. That seems to be what our friend is arguing for--and what Israel's highest court has apparently adopted--but his concept of the reasonable person is laughably broad.
I agree that the idea probably shouldn't be imported at all here.
But is sexual harrassment a crime? Aside from where you might be a publi employee or something, are there crimeinal sexual harrassment statutes? I don't think reasonableness is part of the criminal law unless its determining if someone acted recklessly and even there I'm not 100% sure how it applies.
choice of life partner or simply just sex partner can and often is informed and even dictated by religious belief. to try and isolate that key aspect of one's religion and remove it from the equation doesn;t work. there are a ton of religious beliefs that are objectively "unreasonable" i suppose but the objective legal test is predicated on the fact scenario at hand.
in short, i understand the israeli common law test as this:
is it is reasonable for a devout woman in theses circumstances (taking into account all that has been said and done) to consider the religion of her sex partner a matter of vital importance? if the answer is yes and he actively deceived her or merely omitted telling her because she wouldn;t have consented otherwise then the offence is completed.
No, my logic is crisp and precise.
Your argument is a mess, as is the apparent state of the law in Israel.
How is one individual to know what totally subjective and potentially bizarre criteria possible sex partners regard as "critical"? And, putting the logistics aside, why should the law lend force to personal preferences where the subjective "critical matters" are totally without rational justification or are, in fact, rooted in bigotry? If "reasonableness" is not tied to some sort of objective analysis that makes sense to the nonreligious--i.e., HIV status is a "critical matter" because failure to disclose it can result in a real and tangible harm--then where are you going to draw the line? Are you going to place the courts in the role of determining what is and is not a real religion? And of determining what is and is not a "critical" element of each such religion? And what about determining sincerity of belief?
faux. how does reasonableness even apply. reasonableness is a negligence standard and this isn't a crime wih a negligent or recklessness degree? its just a question of fraud. and that leaves the fraud in the factum fraud in the inducement distinction. Lying about religion is fraud in inducement. No crime.
Well, there are other legal contexts where it can apply, like sexual harassment, where some courts employ a reasonable woman standard in gauging the alleged harassment. That seems to be what our friend is arguing for--and what Israel's highest court has apparently adopted--but his concept of the reasonable person is laughably broad.
I agree that the idea probably shouldn't be imported at all here.
But is sexual harrassment a crime? Aside from where you might be a publi employee or something, are there crimeinal sexual harrassment statutes? I don't think reasonableness is part of the criminal law unless its determining if someone acted recklessly and even there I'm not 100% sure how it applies.
I don't know of any areas of US criminal law where it applies, and I think its ridiculous to apply it here, but it is the standard articulated by (what I assume to be) Israel's highest court. I'm really only addressing CMF's absurdly broad concept of "reasonable."
In 2008, the High Court of Justice set a precedent on rape by deception, rejecting an appeal of the rape conviction by Zvi Sleiman, who impersonated a senior official in the Housing Ministry whose wife worked in the National Insurance Institute. Sleiman told women he would get them an apartment and increased NII payments if they would sleep with him.
High Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein said a conviction of rape should be imposed any time a ???person does not tell the truth regarding critical matters to a reasonable woman, and as a result of misrepresentation she has sexual relations with him.???
Interestingly, the reasonable woman contemplated by the justices appears to be something of a gold digger.
faux: you are completely misconstruing and caricaturing what "reasonable person" means as a legal standard.
here is a discussion of "reasonable or ordinary person" as it is to be applied by the trier of fact in the context of provocation by the house of lords in r v morhal:
Lord Diplock himself spoke of ???the reasonable or ordinary person,??? and indeed to speak of the degree of self-control attributable to the ordinary person is (despite the express words of the statute) perhaps more apt, and certainly less likely to mislead, than to do so with reference to the reasonable person. The word ???ordinary??? is in fact the adjective used in criminal codes applicable in some other common law jurisdictions (as in New Zealand, as to which see Reg. v. McGregor [1962] N.Z.L.R. 1069 and Reg. v. McCarthy [1992] 2 N.Z.L.R. 550, and in Tasmania, as to which see Stingel v. The Queen (1990) 171 C.L.R. 312). Indeed, by exploiting the adjective ??? reasonable??? it is easy to caricature the law as stated in section 3 of the Act of 1957 by talking of the test of, for example, the reasonable blackmailer or, nowadays perhaps, the reasonable glue-sniffer; indeed, the sting of the caricature is derived from the implication that the adjective ???reasonable??? refers to a person who is guided by reason or who acts in a reasonable manner. This is however misleading. In my opinion it would be entirely consistent with the law as stated in section 3 of the Act of 1957, as properly understood, to direct the jury simply with reference to a hypothetical person having the power of self-control to be expected of an ordinary person of the age and sex of the defendant, but in other respects sharing such of the defendant???s characteristics as they think would affect the gravity of the provocation to him: see Reg. v. Camplin [1978] A.C. 705, 718E-F, per Lord Diplock.
but really, shalom everybody, i'm off to the beach...
faux: you are completely misconstruing and caricaturing what "reasonable person" means as a legal standard.
here is a discussion of "reasonable or ordinary person" as it is to be applied by the trier of fact in the context of provocation by the house of lords in r v morhal:
Lord Diplock himself spoke of ???the reasonable or ordinary person,??? and indeed to speak of the degree of self-control attributable to the ordinary person is (despite the express words of the statute) perhaps more apt, and certainly less likely to mislead, than to do so with reference to the reasonable person. The word ???ordinary??? is in fact the adjective used in criminal codes applicable in some other common law jurisdictions (as in New Zealand, as to which see Reg. v. McGregor [1962] N.Z.L.R. 1069 and Reg. v. McCarthy [1992] 2 N.Z.L.R. 550, and in Tasmania, as to which see Stingel v. The Queen (1990) 171 C.L.R. 312). Indeed, by exploiting the adjective ??? reasonable??? it is easy to caricature the law as stated in section 3 of the Act of 1957 by talking of the test of, for example, the reasonable blackmailer or, nowadays perhaps, the reasonable glue-sniffer; indeed, the sting of the caricature is derived from the implication that the adjective ???reasonable??? refers to a person who is guided by reason or who acts in a reasonable manner. This is however misleading. In my opinion it would be entirely consistent with the law as stated in section 3 of the Act of 1957, as properly understood, to direct the jury simply with reference to a hypothetical person having the power of self-control to be expected of an ordinary person of the age and sex of the defendant, but in other respects sharing such of the defendant???s characteristics as they think would affect the gravity of the provocation to him: see Reg. v. Camplin [1978] A.C. 705, 718E-F, per Lord Diplock.
but really, shalom everybody, i'm off to the beach...
^^^^^^^STRAIGHT HUFF
If you think that you have something to say, at least attempt to say it, rather than poasting a block quote that is completely meaningless outside of whatever wig-wearing country you come from, and in any context other than the specific statute that the lords appear to be struggling with.
Comments
Reasonable person is a negligence standard anyway.
a "reasonable" devout person is not a contradiction in terms like say a "reasonable" glue-sniffer...
The general rule is that if deception causes a misunderstanding as to the fact itself (fraud in the factum) there is no legally-recognized consent because what happened is not that for which consent was given; whereas consent induced by fraud is as effective as any other consent, so far as direct and immediate legal consequences are concerned, if the deception relates not to the thing done but merely to some collateral matter (fraud in the inducement). The authors maintain that the most striking illustration of this dichotomy occurs in rape law, supporting their thesis with the following example. If a doctor falsely tells a woman that sexual intercourse is necessary for her treatment and she agrees, no rape occurred because the doctor???s misrepresentation constitutes fraud in the inducement and the resulting consent is effective. On the other hand, if the doctor pretends to perform a routine pelvic exam and instead has sexual intercourse with the woman, then it is rape because this is fraud in the factum which vitiates her consent. The woman never consented to sexual intercourse because she was deceived about the act itself.
jk jk I never been there but it sounds like it. ;)
http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1998/1998scr2-371/1998scr2-371.html
finally, israel may mean alot of different things (good and bad) to different people but i've never heard it described as a "shit hole" have you even visited that country?
(btw- let the record reflect that you just edited in after the fact that you hadn;t been there and that your shit-hole comment was a joke)
i've said all i can on this subject, i'm audi 5000
l was not venting against Zionism, you or any other strutter.
Just pointing out.
Yeah, that must mean I'm a nazi, lol.
If I wanted to live in a grungy desert I'd move to the IE.
yeah right d*n. and computer science is a modern construct that has nothing to do with Judaism.
just pointing out.
haha no. the arte johnson german is ME actually, reacting to your helpful comment. and obv your aversion to living in Israel is based solely on the climate.
Yeah I'm a wuss when it comes to weather.
Not for purposes of this discussion. Yes, a devoutly religious person may also be generally reasonable. But a person whose views on what a sexual partner needs to disclose to him or her are profoundly informed by religion is not "reasonable" in this context. Unless one happens to share that person's religious devotion his or her expectations are deeply unreasonable.
I agree.
In NY, anyways, that consideration only enters the discussion when dealing with marriage. In the marriage context than lying about religion or orthodoxy is grounds for annulment. But in the context of a sex partner, no. In fact, I could see NY not extending the protection of the law to sex outside marriage as the state has an interest in supporting the institution and to do otherwise would run contrary to that interest..
choice of life partner or simply just sex partner can and often is informed and even dictated by religious belief. to try and isolate that key aspect of one's religion and remove it from the equation doesn;t work. there are a ton of religious beliefs that are objectively "unreasonable" i suppose but the objective legal test is predicated on the fact scenario at hand.
in short, i understand the israeli common law test as this:
is it is reasonable for a devout woman in theses circumstances (taking into account all that has been said and done) to consider the religion of her sex partner a matter of vital importance? if the answer is yes and he actively deceived her or merely omitted telling her because she wouldn;t have consented otherwise then the offence is completed.
just do the time homeboy
you'll only come out stronger
that vagina will rot in hell
trust
What part of BC do you live in???
Edit - unless this is about cut or uncut.
edit: i live in the city of vancouver
No, my logic is crisp and precise.
Your argument is a mess, as is the apparent state of the law in Israel.
How is one individual to know what totally subjective and potentially bizarre criteria possible sex partners regard as "critical"? And, putting the logistics aside, why should the law lend force to personal preferences where the subjective "critical matters" are totally without rational justification or are, in fact, rooted in bigotry? If "reasonableness" is not tied to some sort of objective analysis that makes sense to the nonreligious--i.e., HIV status is a "critical matter" because failure to disclose it can result in a real and tangible harm--then where are you going to draw the line? Are you going to place the courts in the role of determining what is and is not a real religion? And of determining what is and is not a "critical" element of each such religion? And what about determining sincerity of belief?
I have a very hard time believing that religion "often" informs people's decision to hit it.
Given that the big ones say you shouldn't be doing it outside marriage anyway, I can't see how it would be a deciding factor...the person would not be acting very "devout" in that case.
bassie: to those who are devout how could you possibly doubt that? to me it means nada.
also, there are levels of devotion.
faux. how does reasonableness even apply. reasonableness is a negligence standard and this isn't a crime wih a negligent or recklessness degree? its just a question of fraud. and that leaves the fraud in the factum fraud in the inducement distinction. Lying about religion is fraud in inducement. No crime.
Have a good and pious weekend everyone!
who ever said a religious person can't also be a hypocrite?
i hope you have a good weekend too, even though we never seem to see eye to eye on anything. out of curiosity why did you want to know what part of bc i come from?
Well, there are other legal contexts where it can apply, like sexual harassment, where some courts employ a reasonable woman standard in gauging the alleged harassment. That seems to be what our friend is arguing for--and what Israel's highest court has apparently adopted--but his concept of the reasonable person is laughably broad.
I agree that the idea probably shouldn't be imported at all here.
i am biased perhaps, but i like the current candain position. the fraud must go to the "nature and quality" of the sexual act itself.
if i understand the israeli law properly, it is terribly unjust in that it is vague and over-broad and just confuses matters.
But is sexual harrassment a crime? Aside from where you might be a publi employee or something, are there crimeinal sexual harrassment statutes? I don't think reasonableness is part of the criminal law unless its determining if someone acted recklessly and even there I'm not 100% sure how it applies.
shalom.
I don't know of any areas of US criminal law where it applies, and I think its ridiculous to apply it here, but it is the standard articulated by (what I assume to be) Israel's highest court. I'm really only addressing CMF's absurdly broad concept of "reasonable."
Interestingly, the reasonable woman contemplated by the justices appears to be something of a gold digger.
here is a discussion of "reasonable or ordinary person" as it is to be applied by the trier of fact in the context of provocation by the house of lords in r v morhal:
but really, shalom everybody, i'm off to the beach...
^^^^^^^STRAIGHT HUFF
If you think that you have something to say, at least attempt to say it, rather than poasting a block quote that is completely meaningless outside of whatever wig-wearing country you come from, and in any context other than the specific statute that the lords appear to be struggling with.