RACE IPSA-LOQUITUR - OF REASONABLE RACISTS, INTELLIGENT BAYESIANS, AND INVOLUNTARY NEGROPHOBES

In this article, Professor Armour explores some of the legal implications of the disturbing notion that, given the perception that blacks are more prone to commit violent acts than nonblacks, it is rational for criminal defendants claiming self-defense to consider race in assessing the risk of violence posed by a supposed assailant. Professor Armour identifies three distinct types of self-defense claims that a defendant may advance, each of which requires the introduction of race-based evidence and arguments to establish the reasonableness of the defendant's actions. While recognizing that a supposed assailant's race may be formally relevant under self-defense doctrine, Professor Armour argues against legal recognition of race-based self-defense claims. Professor Armour's thesis implicates a wide array of jurisprudential concerns: the nature of the moral norm implicit in the reasonable person test; the acceptability of using statistical generalizations in adjudication; and the conflict between instrumental and noninstrumental thinking about legal liability. Professor Armour ultimately concludes that admitting race-based evidence in self-defense cases gives effect to private prejudice in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.