Essay

Justifying Self-Defense: A Theory of Forced Consequences

Why do we have a right to self-defense? Over the years, this seemingly simple question has proved difficult to answer. The right to self-defense arises in situations that involve culpable, non-culpable or non-agent aggressors. The difficulty is to find an explanation that justifies self-preference in each of these instances and maintains the moral distinction between the permitted killing of aggressors and the prohibited killing of innocent bystanders.

This Essay examines three lines of justifications that have been developed over the past three decades: lesser harmful results, forced choice and the rights theory. The “lesser harmful result” argument maintains that the killing of the aggressor is a lesser harm than the death of the defender. The “forced choice” argument says that self-defense is either justified because the defender is uniquely forced to choose between his life and the life of the aggressor, or excused because the he lacks real choice. Finally, the “rights theory” justifies self-defense by the prevailing right of the defender not to be killed over that of the aggressor.

This Essay argues that all three explanations fall short of the comprehensive justification needed to answer this question. It develops a new justification based on a theory of forced consequences. This justification combines two principles: the commonly recognized civil-law principle of fault-based selection and the principle according to which—in situations where either A or B must pay the costs for A’s “bad luck”—A must be the one to pay these costs and may not transfer the burden onto B.

Selection Effects in Constitutional Law

The standard consequentialist analysis of constitutional law focuses on the incentives that shape the behavior of government officials and other constitutional actors. Incentive-based accounts justify elections as a means of constraining officials to promote the public welfare, or at least the welfare of the median voter; justify the separation of powers as a means of making “ambition counteract ambition”; justify negative liberties, such as free speech and free association, as a necessary corrective to incumbent officials’ incentives to suppress political opposition; and so forth.

In this experimental Essay, I offer a preliminary sketch of a different way of looking at constitutional law generally and constitutional structure in particular: through the lens of “selection effects.” Constitutional rules, on this account, should focus not only on the creation of optimal incentives for those who happen to occupy official posts at any given time, but also on the question which (potential) officials are selected to occupy those posts over time. Where an incentive analysis is short-term and static, asking only how legal rules affect the behavior of a given set of officeholders, selection analysis is long-term and dynamic, asking how legal rules themselves produce feedback effects that, over time, bring new types of government officials into power.

This turn to selection-based analysis yields fresh insight into the dynamics of constitutionalism. Because constitutional rules affect the pool of potential and actual officeholders, as well as the behavior of current officeholders, focusing on selection effects shows that some constitutional rules prove “self-stabilizing”: the rules tend to select a corps of officeholders who will act to uphold and stabilize the rules themselves. Other constitutional rules, by contrast, prove “self-negating”: the rules tend to select a corps of officeholders who work to undermine or destabilize the rules themselves. This framework supplies insights into diverse areas of constitutional law and theory, ranging from governmental structure, campaign finance, and voting rights to criminal sentencing, free speech, and affirmative action.

State Action and the Thirteenth Amendment

The Thirteenth Amendment is unique among constitutional provisions in directly regulating private activity. The amendment abolishes slavery both in the familiar antebellum form, in which it was established by the state, and as it might be perpetuated by private individuals, either through their own coercive activity or through the exercise of common law rights. This private action interpretation of the amendment became established soon after the amendment was ratified, and it has remained unquestioned since. This Essay considers the arguments for the amendment’s coverage of private action based on its text, its origins, and the congressional debates over its meaning. The text of the amendment itself makes no reference to the states, unlike the Fourteenth Amendment, as it was modeled on territorial legislation in which Congress exercised plenary authority over private behavior. The congressional debates over the amendment reveal that it was designed to eliminate all forms of slavery, to alter the existing distribution of power between the states and the federal government, and to abolish slavery as a system of property rights—including property rights exercised by private individuals. All of this was accomplished by the self-executing provisions of section 1, but the private action interpretation of the amendment also extends to section 2, which grants Congress the power to enforce the amendment “by appropriate legislation.” This grant of legislative authority provides indirect, but crucial support, for modern civil rights legislation that prohibits private discrimination. Section 2 should not be narrowly construed in an effort to find a restraint on federal power analogous to the state action doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment. The influence of the Thirteenth Amendment has been—and should continue to be—as broad as the problems of slavery to which it was originally addressed.

©Virginia Law Review Association. All rights reserved.