In the context of intentional offenses, there is today almost unanimous agreement that the concept of reasonableness merely expresses the fundamental idea of justifications. However, an independent limitation of criminal behavioral requirements through considerations of reasonableness is not recognized. This restrictive understanding of the concept is abandoned in the case of genuine omissions: here, the prevailing opinion explicitly makes criminal liability dependent on whether the behavior in accordance with the norm was reasonable for the offender. Can this different treatment be justified? This investigation seeks to answer that question.