Judging reproductive rights violations: Disability status, contextual factors and eugenic attitudes in mock jury decisions

Abstract Purpose Despite efforts to reduce non‐consensual sterilization of people with intellectual disability, little is known about how such cases are judged. Using an incremental mock jury paradigm, this study examined how contextual information shapes lay judicial judgements. Methods Two hundred and thirteen French jury‐eligible participants evaluated a criminal scenario involving a non‐consensual sterilization and indicated what information could justify the decision. Depending on condition, participants rejected any justification, considered disability sufficient or requested contextual information: custody removal or genetic risk. A control group evaluated a case without victim disability. Participants rated justifiability, emotions, sentence, penological orientations and eugenic attitudes. Results Two‐thirds of participants requested information before judging. Justifiability was associated with moral acceptability, lower anger and disgust, and reduced sentences. Those endorsing disability alone showed higher eugenic attitudes, sympathy for the physician and less for the victim. Custody removal information decreased sentences by 2.35 years; genetic risk had no effect. Controls judged more harshly, showing less sympathy for the physician and stronger endorsement of incapacitation and deterrence, whereas disability conditions endorsed exoneration more strongly. Conclusion Victim disability reduced punishment tendencies and shifted penological reasoning towards relatively greater exoneration despite low absolute levels. Four profiles emerged before any information was given: participants who rejected sterilization outright, those who considered disability alone sufficient and those who required additional information about child welfare or genetic risk. These profiles already differed in eugenic attitudes. Genetic transmission information had no effect on judgements; what mattered was how participants viewed disability before knowing the full case.