IN THE FIFTIES, NUMEROUS FRENCH DISCUSSIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DOMINATED MEETINGS BETWEEN PSYCHIATRISTS AND LEGAL EXPERTS, BUT WHILE FRENCH RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT HAS DECREASED SINCE THEN, ANGLO-SAXON AUTHORS HAVE SHOWN RENEWED INTEREST. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LITERATURE REVIEW IS TO SUPPLY THE FRENCH READER WITH A CRITICAL SURVEY OF ALL TYPES OF PUBLICATIONS (BOOKS, ARTICLES, REPORTS, ETC.) IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CONCERNING THE SUBJECT OF DANGEROUSNESS SINCE THE FIFTIES (WITH THE BULK OF THE REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS IN THE SIXTIES AND SEVENTIES). THE VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS ARE BROKEN DOWN INTO THREE CATEGORIES: (1) MENTAL DISORDERS AND DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR, (2) PSYCHIATRIC PREDICTION OF DANGEROUSNESS, AND (3) PSYCHIATRIC DETERMINATION OF DANGEROUSNESS. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE RESEARCH IS GUIDED BY THREE STATED PRINCIPLES REGARDING THESE CATEGORIES. FIRST, LEAVING THE DEFINITION OF DANGEROUSNESS UP TO THE PSYCHIATRISTS WHO BY DEFINITION DEALS WITH MENTAL SICKNESS AND DISORDERS, REINFORCES THE MISCONCEPTION THAT DANGEROUSNESS AND MENTAL ILLNESS ARE SOMEHOW RELATED. SECOND, BECAUSE OF ITS METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS, MODERN PSYCHIATRY IS UNABLE TO PREDICT DANGEROUSNESS. THIRD, PSYCHIATRISTS SHOULD NOT BE ASKED TO DETERMINE DANGEROUSNESS, SINCE THIS WOULD INVOLVE AN UNFORTUNATE MIXING OF LEGAL, POLITICAL, AND MENTAL HEALTH QUESTIONS. THE REVIEW CONCLUDES THAT DANGEROUSNESS IS JUST AN ASPECT OF DEVIANCE AND IT SUPPORTS THE LABELING THEORY AS AN EXPLANATION FOR DANGEROUSNESS RATHER THAN THE PSYCHIATRIC APPROACH. THE ARTICLE CONTAINS A DETAILED BIBLIOGRAPHY. --IN FRENCH. (SAJ)