Resumen
Building on recent work in the US, we examined the influence of infant disability status and defendant and juror gender on reactions to infanticide cases. Participants (282 juror-eligible adults) read one of four cases in which a parent is charged with first degree murder in the death of a four-month old. The cases varied on the dimensions of infant health status (healthy and typically developing or with a severe disability) and defendant gender (mother or father). Participants then completed case-related judgments, including guilt, and defendant and victim sympathy, similarity, and empathy. In addition to some gender differences, the results showed pervasive effects of infant health status on perceptions of parental responsibility, verdict, and sentencing. When the infant was portrayed as having a disability, the mock jurors were less likely to hold the parent responsible for the infant?s death, less likely to render a guilty verdict, and more likely to recommend lenient sentences. The mock-juror participants also reported more sympathy and empathy for the defendant, and held fewer negative beliefs about the defendant. The data overall suggest that adults perceive the life of an infant with a severe disability to be fundamentally unworthy. They are sympathetic to the infant?s murder and likely to render less punitive judgements and sentences. Such discriminatory attitudes stand in sharp contradiction to the legal rights of all children with disabilities as described in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.