{"id":1465,"date":"2020-06-08T08:27:00","date_gmt":"2020-06-08T13:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/?p=1465"},"modified":"2020-06-09T10:05:11","modified_gmt":"2020-06-09T15:05:11","slug":"who-among-us-is-the-reasonable-person","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/who-among-us-is-the-reasonable-person\/","title":{"rendered":"Who Among Us Is the Reasonable Person?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Blurred<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Our cultural understanding of \u201ccriminal\u201d heavily influences how the elements of a criminal defense are defined and applied. Kansas Supreme Court case State v. Stewart<\/em><\/a> was no exception to this rule. The defendant in this case, a victim of a long-term domestic abuse by her husband, Mike, was charged with first-degree murder of her husband. After suffering years of emotional and physical abuse toward herself and her two daughters, on the morning of the murder, Stewart found her only escape from the nightmare, her only shield from continued threats of abuse and even death: a loaded .357 magnum. She hoped that it would liberate her from a past filled with hospitalizations from Mike\u2019s abuse, multiple threats of death at gunpoint, and countless escalated sexual demands. Stewart picked up the gun and killed her sleeping husband, the source of her suicidal thoughts and daily death threats. The jury rightly found her actions justified under self-defense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, on appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court held that \u201cwhen a battered woman kills her sleeping spouse when there is no imminent danger<\/em>, the killing is not reasonably necessary<\/em> and a self-defense [jury] instruction may not be given.\u201d (emphasis added). The court further explained that it was an error for the trial court to instruct the jury to determine whether Stewart\u2019s belief of imminent danger, and necessity for self-defense, was reasonable\u201cfrom her individual subjective<\/em> viewpoint rather than the viewpoint of a reasonable person in her circumstances.\u201d (emphasis added). Under this standard, the court was not convinced that Mike\u2019s daily threat of death was an imminent danger. Defining \u201cimminent\u201d as \u201cclose to the time,\u201d the court determined that the threat was not reasonably imminent because a reasonable person would not sense a temporal closeness of threatened harm when she pulled the trigger. Moreover, from the objective <\/em>viewpoint of a reasonable person in her circumstances, the level of force was not reasonably necessary to repel the threat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps the court genuinely attempted to impose an objective standard in reasonableness. Perhaps, using the objective standard, Stewart was<\/em> overreacting. In actuality, however, the justices, while requiring objective determination of reasonableness, substituted the objective \u201creasonable person\u201d in Stewart\u2019s circumstances with their own subjective, empathetic \u201creasonable person\u201d in her circumstances. To the court, the threat was not reasonably imminent nor was self-defense reasonably necessary for Stewart to protect herself against a male of a physical stature and a standing in society like Mike\u2019s. The court formulated a woman without a long history of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, a woman who did not suffer from schizophrenia and suicidal compulsion, a woman who was not forced to live with the source of her trauma. For that woman, the threat was not reasonably imminent, and self-defense was not reasonably necessary. As demonstrated by the court itself, an objective \u201creasonable person\u201d completely unaltered by her circumstances is a fictional character; she is always constructed by subjective social norms and familiarities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stewart, crippled with excruciating fear and repeated physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, was<\/em> the reasonable person in her circumstances. Any reasonable person having lived through her circumstances would have perceived a real, apparent, and reasonably imminent danger, one that necessitated self-defense. The Kansas Supreme Court\u2019s analysis of \u201creasonableness\u201d can only be understood as its failure to understand the \u201ccriminal.\u201d In the justices\u2019 presumably normal, unabusive marriages and average relational problems, they regarded the defendant, who killed out of recurring fear of death, not as a reasonable person, but as a monstrous anomaly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recently, there has been a move toward allowing defendants to present evidence of past battering and its effect in self-defense claims<\/a> in domestic violence cases. There is an increasing social awareness of the effect of long-term abuse on victims of domestic violence, a \u201cnon-demonizing\u201d view of a woman who stays in a long-term abusive relationship, and empathy towards victims who kill during nonconfrontational moments. There also has been a call for a more objective view<\/a> of the effect of battering by eliminating the focus on gender and individual psychology and instead looking to the pattern of physical or emotional abuse and a cultural context of domination. This cultural awareness and understanding is further bolstered by advanced research on the effects of repeated battering<\/a>. If Stewart\u2019s case had taken place today, the court may have seen her as the reasonable person committing reasonable acts, given the increased social awareness, and a more objective understanding, of domestic abuse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maybe today, the Kansas Supreme Court would accept the Black\u2019s Law Dictionary<\/a> definition of \u201cimminent,\u201d defining it not as \u201cclose in time\u201d but as \u201cdangerously impending.\u201d  If they adopt this definition, the court would hold that the jury could find that danger was reasonably imminent. Mike was provoked erratically and threatened to shoot Stewart multiple times. She lived in constant fear, knowing that Mike could kill her at any time; any reasonable person would have acted the way she did to defend themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, punishments against someone like Stewart are not justified. Through its holding, the court effectively deterred rightful self-defense against perpetrators of domestic violence. However, it did not deter the actual perpetrators. Instead, it punished people like Stewart, who normally do not pose a threat to society. Such a decision does not create a better, safer society. If creating such a society is a purported goal of the justice system<\/a>, maybe what is needed is better support and awareness around this issue and stricter punishment for abusers. If Stewart were standing in front of a court today, she should not be viewed as someone who is morally culpable; rather, she should be viewed as a victim of a morally culpable abuser. Although this court\u2019s holding did not change Stewart\u2019s verdict\u2014her not guilty verdict remained in place and she was not tried under the new jury instruction\u2014the court\u2019s decision unfortunately created a precedent for how to instruct juries in future Kansas cases. And Kansas is not alone. Even today<\/a>, many states still do not allow<\/a> self-defense claims for victims of domestic violence who kill during nonconfrontational moments because there is neither imminence nor reasonable necessity for self-defense. Our hope is that the continued awareness of the effect of long-term domestic violence, the increasing volume of work by scholars to bring objectivity to the \u201cmurder,\u201d and the re-definition of the \u201ccriminal\u201d and the \u201creasonable person\u201d will change this precedent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Our cultural understanding of \u201ccriminal\u201d heavily influences how the elements of a criminal defense are defined and applied. Kansas Supreme Court case State v. Stewart was no exception to this rule. The defendant in this case, a victim of a long-term domestic abuse by her husband, Mike, was charged with first-degree murder of her husband. After suffering years of emotional and physical abuse toward herself and her two daughters, on the morning of the murder, Stewart found her only escape…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":131,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[48],"tags":[47,273,274,63,275],"class_list":["post-1465","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-1l-blog-contest","tag-1l-blog","tag-1l-blog-contest","tag-1l-contest","tag-domestic-violence","tag-reasonable-person"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9jSvD-nD","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1467,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/hively-v-ivy-tech\/","url_meta":{"origin":1465,"position":0},"title":"Hively v. Ivy Tech","author":"Matthew Chang","date":"June 8, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"In the summer of 2015, same-sex couples celebrated a civil rights victory following the Supreme Court\u2019s monumental decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. The Court recognized same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marriage, protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. While the right to marriage was immediate, this\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1L Blog Contest"","block_context":{"text":"1L Blog Contest","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/category\/1l-blog-contest\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1463,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/korematsu-covid-19-and-the-question-of-executive-deference\/","url_meta":{"origin":1465,"position":1},"title":"Korematsu, COVID-19, and The Question of Executive Deference","author":"Megan Lenz","date":"June 8, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWrong the day it was decided\u201d is a judgment that the Supreme Court reserves for overturning its most egregious prior decisions. One of the cases that most recently received that declaration is Korematsu v. United States, a decision that infamously sanctioned the World War II internment of individuals of Japanese\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1L Blog Contest"","block_context":{"text":"1L Blog Contest","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/category\/1l-blog-contest\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/thomas-de-luze-yVEmozUCyxc-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/thomas-de-luze-yVEmozUCyxc-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/thomas-de-luze-yVEmozUCyxc-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/thomas-de-luze-yVEmozUCyxc-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/thomas-de-luze-yVEmozUCyxc-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/thomas-de-luze-yVEmozUCyxc-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1000,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/nulr-1l-writing-competition-dred-scott-v-sandford-dissent\/","url_meta":{"origin":1465,"position":2},"title":"NULR 1L Writing Competition: Dred Scott v. Sandford (Dissent)","author":"Walter Garcia","date":"April 24, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Photo by\u00a0\u00c1lvaro Serrano\u00a0on\u00a0Unsplash The idea of diversity has influenced some of our country's most important judicial decisions.\u00a0We asked Northwestern 1Ls to write about a case they studied in their first year of law school that has affected their opinion about diversity in the legal system.\u00a0Walter was one of the winners.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1L Blog Contest"","block_context":{"text":"1L Blog Contest","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/category\/1l-blog-contest\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/alvaro-serrano-133360-unsplash-1-1024x683.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/alvaro-serrano-133360-unsplash-1-1024x683.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/alvaro-serrano-133360-unsplash-1-1024x683.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1001,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/nulr-1l-writing-competition-fong-yue-ting-v-united-states-critique\/","url_meta":{"origin":1465,"position":3},"title":"NULR 1L Writing Competition: Fong Yue Ting v. United States (Critique)","author":"Meher Babbar","date":"April 24, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Photo by Miko Guziuk on Unsplash The idea of diversity has influenced some of our country's most important judicial decisions.\u00a0We asked Northwestern 1Ls to write about a case they studied in their first year of law school that has affected their opinion about diversity in the legal system. Meher was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1L Blog Contest"","block_context":{"text":"1L Blog Contest","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/category\/1l-blog-contest\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/miko-guziuk-1151287-unsplash-2-1024x768.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/miko-guziuk-1151287-unsplash-2-1024x768.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/miko-guziuk-1151287-unsplash-2-1024x768.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":2722,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/the-right-to-civil-counsel-gender-disparities-in-a-lawyerless-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":1465,"position":4},"title":"The Right to Civil Counsel: Gender Disparities in a Lawyerless Court","author":"Ashwin Telang","date":"October 10, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Upon approaching the Supreme Court, visitors, justices, and litigants read the phrase, \u201cEqual Justice Under Law.\u201d These four words, chiseled into the heart of the building, could not be more incorrect in today\u2019s legal landscape. Access to lawyers and justice in America is indeed inequitable. What\u2019s broader: the issue exacerbates\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1135,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/is-it-only-a-crime-domestic-violence-vulnerability-and-the-carceral-state\/","url_meta":{"origin":1465,"position":5},"title":"Is it Only a Crime? Domestic Violence, Vulnerability, and the Carceral State","author":"Malinda Seymore","date":"February 17, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"The following piece is a part of NULR of Note's \u201cBring Back The \u201890s\u201d initiative, aimed at exploring the evolution of legal thinking over the past three decades. For more, click here. Photo by\u00a0Emiliano Bar\u00a0on\u00a0Unsplash When I wrote\u00a0Isn\u2019t It a Crime: Feminist Perspectives on Spousal Immunity and Spousal Violence\u00a0for the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Bring Back the '90s"","block_context":{"text":"Bring Back the '90s","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/category\/professor-contribution\/bring-back-the-90s\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/emiliano-bar-PaKHbtTDqt0-unsplash.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/emiliano-bar-PaKHbtTDqt0-unsplash.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/emiliano-bar-PaKHbtTDqt0-unsplash.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/emiliano-bar-PaKHbtTDqt0-unsplash.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/emiliano-bar-PaKHbtTDqt0-unsplash.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/emiliano-bar-PaKHbtTDqt0-unsplash.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1465","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/131"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1465"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1465\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1465"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1465"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1465"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}