Public Attitudes Towards Forced Tubal Ligation of Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities: The Role of Eugenics, Emotional Responses, and Penology in a Mock Jury Trial

The purpose of this study was to examine how individuals (N = 213) judge the forced tubal ligation of individuals with intellectual disabilities through a mock jury trial. It assessed morality, perceived rationality, emotions, and legal responses in five conditions: intellectual disability (yes or no) and removal of parental custody (yes or no) versus a control condition (no intellectual disability and no removal of parental custody). Additionally, we explored variations in judgments when participants received specific reasons for recommending sterilization (genetic transmission risk and parental ability). Participants first judged incomplete scenarios, then received the doctor’s rationale, and finally reevaluated their views with complete information. The study revealed three participant profiles: intransigent participants who unconditionally reject all justifications, conditional participants who view intellectual disability as a sufficient justification, and prospective participants sensitive to detailed contextual factors.