What About The Rights Of The Infant With Disabilities? Responses To Infanticide As Function Of Infant Health Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".