TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
RE: Legal English (was RE: Using M-dash and N-dash?)
Subject:RE: Legal English (was RE: Using M-dash and N-dash?) From:"Downing, David" <DavidDowning -at- Users -dot- com> To:<TECHWR-L -at- LISTS -dot- RAYCOMM -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:12:29 -0500
I think what the "reasonable man" provision is IDEALLY supposed to do is
cover situations where somebody makes some really out-in-left-field
claim about what they believed, or didn't know, or whatever, and feels
they aren't legally responsible for an alleged offense because the law
didn't explicitly deal with what they believed. Since it isn't possible
to rewrite the law to take every individual into account, you have to
write it with the "reasonable man" in mind. Of course, while you can
come up with an example where that notion really is appropriate -- "Hey,
I didn't know I'd actually KILL that guy by pushing him off the Empire
State Building. I thought he'd maybe get a few bruises or something."
-- you can also come up with examples where it allows a judge to
unfairly assert that "You should have known [whatever]."
-----Original Message-----
From: mlist -at- ca -dot- rainbow -dot- com [mailto:mlist -at- ca -dot- rainbow -dot- com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 3:16 PM
To: Downing, David; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Subject: RE: Legal English (was RE: Using M-dash and N-dash?)
What of the notion, cited by many judges, to the embarrassment
and detriment of one party or another, of the doctrine of the
reasonable man? They refer to what a reasonable and prudent
person may be deemed to have believed/known/expected/done in
a given situation. The.... dare I say it.... _implication_ is
that your definition of "reasonable and prudent" had better
agree with the judge's.
