French Judges’ Beliefs About Addiction
Divided on Causes, Aligned on Individual Responsibility
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21560877 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Vanessa De Luca (0000-0001-9956-8429, Université de Rennes), Maria Alejandra Erazo Diaz (0009-0001-5829-9389, University of Bologna), Nicolas Nayfeld (0000-0003-4627-3648, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 42 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 883-902 |
| Publication date | 2025-07-29 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Justice Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0741-8825 • E-ISSN: 1745-9109 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/07418825.2024.2436568 |
| OpenAlex | W4405254422 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 51 |
This empirical study examines French judges’ beliefs about addiction, focusing on whether these beliefs align or diverge, and their impact on perceptions of individual responsibility. While the disease-versus-choice model debate permeates discussions about addiction, little is known about how judges—key actors in the legal system—conceptualize addiction and make decisions accordingly. Understanding these beliefs is crucial, as judges can significantly influence both the legal outcomes and the rehabilitation of people with substance use disorder (SUD). This study aims to determine whether judges’ beliefs are homogeneous or whether they vary according to personal and professional characteristics. Our randomized sample includes 561 French judges from various judicial positions. We use the Addiction Belief Inventory questionnaire. The answers are analyzed through a Latent Class Analysis. We reveal three belief profiles which are not directly associated with a specific judicial position: one that clearly corresponds to the disease model of addiction; a mixed one in which the medical view of addiction is influenced and mitigated by the view of addiction as a moral weakness; a third one that rejects the view of addiction as a disease or a moral weakness, but is neutral about the stress-coping conception. These results highlight the heterogeneity of beliefs within the judiciary, signaling potential sentencing inconsistencies and underscoring the need for unified training. Despite diverging beliefs about the causes of addiction, French judges uniformly perceive individuals with SUD as responsible agents, which indicates a certain robustness and independence of this belief. This research has implications for the consistency of legal outcomes, the rehabilitation of people with SUD, and the broader societal understanding of addiction
Addiction · Criminology · Psychiatry · Historical and Scientific Studies · Opioid Use Disorder Treatment · Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare · Psychology · Social Psychology
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Addiction Is a Brain Disease, and It Matters
Neurobiologic Advances from the Brain Disease Model of Addiction
Responsibility without Blame for Addiction
Substance abuse and dependence in prisoners
Biogenetic explanations and public acceptance of mental illness
The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Psychiatry
Reinventing Justice
Is a brain‐based understanding of addiction predominant? An assessment of addiction researchers' conceptions of addiction and their evaluation of brain‐based explanations
Implications of addiction diagnosis and addiction beliefs for public stigma
Drug Courts and the ‘Responsibility without Blame’ Approach
How FDA Failures Contributed to the Opioid Crisis
Addiction is Not a Brain Disease (and it Matters)
The chronic disease concept of addiction
Tough Love
A Theory of Rational Addiction
Judging Addicts
| Highly cited | No |
|---|