PSYCHOLOGISTS AND PSYCHIATRISTS ARE WELL QUALIFIED FOR SUPPLYING AN OVERALL PORTRAIT OF AN OFFENDER'S PERSONALITY; INSTEAD THEY ARE USUALLY ASKED TO RESPOND TO A LIST OF PRECISE LEGAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING OFFENDERS' ABILITY TO REALIZE THE CRIMINAL CHARACTER OF THEIR ACTIONS AND TO ASSUME PENAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM. IN ANSWERING SUCH QUESTIONS, THE PSYCHOLOGIST ASSUMES PART OF THE JUDGE'S TASK AND AT TIMES MUST GO BEYOND PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES. THE JUDGES ARE SATISFIED WITH THIS SITUATION SINCE THE PSYCHIATRIC REPORTS SEEM TO FURNISH THEM WITH 'CLEAR-CUT,' 'SCIENTIFIC' EVIDENCE FREEING THEM OF PART OF THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SENTENCE. THEREFORE, THEY ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE ETHICAL PROBLEMS THE PSYCHIATRIST OR PSYCHOLOGIST MUST FACE. THE OFFENDER IS REDUCED TO A POWERLESS, DEPERSONALIZED OBJECT, AND HAS NO INSIGHT WHATSOEVER INTO THE RESULTS OF POWERFUL TESTS OR THE PSYCHIATRIST'S CONCLUSIONS. THE PATIENT/PSYCHIATRIST RELATIONSHIP AT A PUBLIC PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTION IS ALMOST ALWAYS CHARACTERIZED BY THIS UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF POWER: E.G., WOMEN SEEKING LEGAL ABORTIONS OR OBJECTORS TO THE MILITARY SERVICE ARE AT THE MERCY OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION. AT THE SAME TIME, THE PSYCHIATRISTS FEEL PROFESSIONALLY FRUSTRATED SINCE FEW CLIENTS SEEK THEIR ADVICE OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL. IT IS ARGUED THAT PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED IN THE LEGAL SECTOR DEPERSONALIZE STAFF AND PATIENTS IN THE INTEREST OF THEIR OWN POWER POSITION. --IN FRENCH. (SAJ)