At a time when the rest of Canada, and indeed much of the Western World, was looking for alternatives to large custodial mental hospitals, people in the Western Canadian province of Saskatchewan celebrated the opening of one of the country's largest asylums. The province remained committed to the institution throughout the interwar years, offering few alternatives for people deemed insane or mentally defective. People on the outside often saw the asylum as an economic boon, a marker of civilization, or as an institution that was crucial for protecting the health and safety of the public. Patients and their families, however, struggled against an institution where patients were subjected to a broad range of indignities. By carefully considering Saskatchewan's regional social and political culture, I examine the values that were projected onto the asylum by those on the outside and the boundaries that were established between the patients and the public that enabled the public to see the asylum as necessary despite widespread patient suffering. I argue that the public accepted the Weyburn Mental Hospital first as a monument worthy of celebration and then as a necessary, though perhaps regrettable, tool for segregation. The asylum in the interwar years is best understood as a political rather than a medical institution, where politicians and the asylum administration cultivated an image for the institution that conformed to regional values. The government and the media defined the patient experience for a curious public, portraying the institution and its patients in a way that not only legitimized the asylum but that also assigned it meaning far beyond its stated medical function. The values associated with the asylum changed over time, but were always guided by political concerns and were always facilitated by manipulating the relationship between the asylum, its patients, and the surrounding community.

No description available.

La folie, dans les archives de la justice royale aux XIVe et XVe siècles, s’accompagne de deux effets de droit : l’incapacité dans les affaires civiles et l’irresponsabilité dans la sphère pénale. La démence (furor) est définie, de manière sommaire, comme une maladie relevant des lois de la nature, qui prive la personne de sa capacité à posséder une intention valable. Sur la base de ce canevas juridique, les descriptions de comportements fous sont assez diverses, car elles s’adaptent aux termes de chaque litige. L’argument de folie sert, en particulier, à excuser un crime, à faire annuler un contrat ou un testament, ou encore à empêcher un proche parent de dissiper les biens du lignage, en obtenant son interdiction et/ou sa mise en curatelle. Le pouvoir qui s’exerce sur l’individu déclaré fou est d’abord celui de la parentèle, qui l’empêche d’accéder au statut normal de l’adulte en raison de son désordre mental et qui, s’il est dangereux, le garde lié à domicile. Des usages coutumiers règlementent ces situations, mais le recours aux sentences des tribunaux royaux et aux règles du droit savant se développe au cours de la période. Le roi ne légifère pas sur ces affaires familiales, laissant certains acteurs intermédiaires, notamment urbains, réclamer la garde de ces sujets vulnérables. Ses gens de justice veillent néanmoins à rendre incontournable le recours à sa juridiction souveraine. / In the archives of the royal justice system of the 14th and 15th centuries, madness was distinguished by two distinct judicial attributes: full incapacity in civil proceedings and the exception from penal responsibility in judicial matters. Dementia (furor) was summarily defined as an illness, stemming from the laws of nature, which deprived the subject of his ability to express any valid intent. Within this legal framework, whether or not conduct was deemed mad depended in large part on the specific circumstances of each law suit. The insanity plea could be used, for example, to acquit a crime, to nullify a contract or a testament as well as to prevent a relative from squandering the possessions of the family line by either having him barred and/or placed under guardianship. Those who were regarded as insane found themselves placed, primarily, under the authority of their relatives who thus deprived them of the ordinary privileges associated to adulthood and, should they prove dangerous, kept them at home. If customary law was generally used to arbitrate these situations, more and more appeals to the royal courts and to the opinions of legal scholars were made during this period. Even if the king did not pass judgment on such family matters, he did deputize certain mid-level actors, such as the burghers, to take these vulnerable subjects in their custody. In turn, these lawmen remained particularly attentive to appeal systematically to his sovereign authority.