French Judges’ Beliefs About Addiction: Divided on Causes, Aligned on Individual Responsibility

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.