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

In this article, Professor Armour explores some of the legal implicati ons of the disturbing notion that, given the perception that blacks ar e more prone to commit violent acts than nonblacks, it is rational for criminal defendants claiming self-defense to consider race in assessi ng the risk of violence posed by a supposed assailant. Professor Armou r identifies three distinct types of self-defense claims that a defend ant may advance, each of which requires the introduction of race-based evidence and arguments to establish the reasonableness of the defenda nt's actions. While recognizing that a supposed assailant's race may b e formally relevant under self-defense doctrine, Professor Armour argu es against legal recognition of race-based self-defense claims. Profes sor Armour's thesis implicates a wide array of jurisprudential concern s: the nature of the moral norm implicit in the reasonable person test ; the acceptability of using statistical generalizations in adjudicati on; and the conflict between instrumental and noninstrumental thinking about legal liability. Professor Armour ultimately concludes that adm itting race-based evidence in self-defense cases gives effect to priva te prejudice in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.