Which standard do courts typically use to determine whether conduct is considered unwelcome in cases involving psychological disorders?

• A. The reasonable person standard
• B. The strict liability standard
• C. The subjective intent standard
• D. The medical necessity standard

Answer: (A)

Verified step by step guidance

1. Step 1: Understand the context of the question, which involves legal standards used by courts to evaluate whether conduct is considered unwelcome, particularly in cases involving psychological disorders.
2. Step 2: Recognize that courts often rely on objective criteria to assess behavior, rather than purely subjective feelings or intentions, to ensure fairness and consistency in legal judgments.
3. Step 3: Identify the 'reasonable person standard' as a legal benchmark that asks whether a hypothetical reasonable person would consider the conduct unwelcome under similar circumstances.
4. Step 4: Differentiate this from other standards such as the 'strict liability standard' (which involves liability without fault), the 'subjective intent standard' (which focuses on the perpetrator's mindset), and the 'medical necessity standard' (which relates to justifications based on medical needs).
5. Step 5: Conclude that the 'reasonable person standard' is typically used by courts because it provides an objective measure to determine if conduct is unwelcome, balancing individual experiences with societal norms.