WITHIN THE PENAL SYSTEM PSYCHIATRIC EXPERTISE HAD BECOME A MEANS FOR DETERMINING THE FORM OF SOCIAL CONTROL RATHER THAN FOR UNDERSTANDING INDIVIDUAL DELINQUENTS. A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF 52 FROM THE 433 REPORTS FILED AT GENEVA UNIVERSITY'S INSTITUTE OF LEGAL MEDICINE SHOWED THE MOST COMMON DIAGNOSIS TO BE INCOMPLETE MENTAL DEVELOPMENT (58 PERCENT) OR MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS (29 PERCENT), WITH WIDE VARIATION ACCORDING TO THE PSYCHIATRIST'S VIEW OF PSYCHOPATHY. THE SAMPLE ALSO DEEMED THE INDIVIDUAL'S SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY TO BE FREQUENTLY LIMITED (67 PERCENT) BUT RARELY LACKING ENTIRELY. RECOMMENDED TREATMENT MEASURES WERE OFTEN STRICT BUT HAVE MORE RECENTLY STRESSED EXTRAINSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT PROCEDURES BECAUSE OF LIMITED HOSPITAL FACILITIES. THE LANGUAGE OF THE REPORTS REFLECTED THE PSYCHIATRIC MODELS USED BY THE EXPERTS; 52 PERCENT OF THE SAMPLE REPORTS WERE GENERALLY COMPREHENSIBLE, 10 PERCENT WERE DOMINATED BY TECHNICAL JARGON, AND 38 PERCENT WERE MIXED. IN SOME CASES, PSYCHIATRISTS FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THE EFFECT OF THEIR PSYCHOANALYTIC TERMINOLOGY ON THE JUDGE AND JURY. THE ATTITUDE OF THE EXPERT TOWARD PSYCHIATRIC EXPERTISE WAS AMBIGUOUS: TO EXPLAIN DELINQUENTS' ACTS, THE PSYCHIATRIST CANNOT SIMPLY OBSERVE, BUT ENTERING INTO A DEEPER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OFFENDER COULD COMPROMISE OBJECTIVITY. AS IN COURT EXPERTS ARE PLACED IN THE DELICATE POSITION OF HAVING TO EXPLAIN DEVIANT BEHAVIOR TO THE JUDGE AND JURY UNDER CROSS EXAMINATION, THEY BECOME PREOCCUPIED WITH THEIR TRIAL IMAGE. ALTHOUGH SOME PSYCHIATRISTS QUESTION THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR ROLES, THEY TEND TO RESIST CHANGE BECAUSE OF THE FRAMEWORK EXPERTISE PROVIDES FOR YOUNG PSYCHIATRISTS AND BECAUSE OF THEIR FEELING THAT JUDGES MUST NOT INTERPRET BEHAVIOR WITHOUT ASSISTANCE. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT PSYCHIATRIC EXPERTISE WHICH OVER-PROTECTS THE DEVIANT AND OVEREMPHASIZES THE MEDICAL MODEL (I.E., TREATMENT OF THE 'SICK' DEVIANT) SHOULD NOT DIVERT ATTENTION OF CITIZENS FROM BASIC PROBLEMS OF DEVIANCE. NOTES ARE SUPPLIED. --IN FRENCH. (KMD)