[In the line of sight of court hearings reviewing involuntary confinement: mental state and dangerousness.].

This article presents results following the observation of six court hearings of the Tribunal administratif du Québec reviewing involuntary confinement. All 6 hearings concerned individuals considered dangerous. Through thematic analysis of testimonies and interrogations of various people involved (psychiatrist, prosecutor, defence attorney, expert psychiatrist), the author examines signs and points of reference used by those involved to decide on the dangerousness of a psychiatric patient. The results reveal that there is no objective criteria emerging from the hearings and that the way to define the dangerousness of an individual is abstract as well as vague. In fact, it is only in the written decision following hearings one sees the first comments related to dangerousness. The hearing stages psychiatry's and the law's protagonists who discuss among themselves not the issue of dangerousness but rather the implicitness of compulsory treatment the person must share with them. In the written decision, this is what emerges of this discourse which appears to be translated in terms of dangerousness.