It would now be worth taking these various frustrations into consideration, rather than leaving them to be dealt with by individuals as best they can at their own level. Moreover, from the Contrôleur général’s point of view, an analysis of the reality on the ground is necessary because these signs of “abandonment” constitute a threat to the quality with which the prison administration fulfils the duties incumbent upon it. 2.4.2 Uniformity and Diversity: Removal from Prison for Treatment in Hospital For a precise understanding of imprisonment, it is necessary to take one of its major contrasts into account: uniformity and diversity in the approaches used towards prisoners. On the one hand, prisoners are dealt with in an undifferentiated manner, regardless of the offence that they have committed and whatever their personality, behaviour and level of physical fitness. On the other hand, a personal approach, taking the latter criteria into consideration, may be used i n order to determine how individual prisoners are dealt with. The place accorded to each of these approaches is certainly a defining feature of any criminal policy. From the perspective of a very broad view of the history of prisons, it can be maintained that although, in the past, prisoners were in general dealt with in a very uniform manner, today individualised approaches have been established in many regards. However, one evidently needs to go into greater depth in order to analyse the unstable balance between these two approaches to dealing with prisoners, which may be characterised, as Caroline Touraut writes, as “collective management” and “personal management” 107. The respective scope of each of these two approaches is naturally determined by prison rules themselves: all un-convicted prisoners inside remand prisons and all convicted prisoners inside penal institutions for definitively sentenced prisoners. Days always start at 7 o’clock in the morning and doors are always closed for the night at 17:30 (except, specifically, in certain prisons for definitively sentenced prisoners). All prisoners have more or less the same terms of access to the telephone and the same facilities for the issue of visiting permits to their relations 108, the same possibilities for use of the prison shop, identical remuneration for work etc. Prisoners are all treated in an identical manner with regard to the management of their personal accounts, the sending of parcels from outside, authorised and prohibited items, the practice of searches (by means of frisking or body searches) etc. and, of course, the system of discipline and the “course of enforcement of sentences” for convicted prisoners. As far as “distinguishing” between persons is concerned, as we know, the rules separate prisoners according to the criteria of age (minors, young adults, adults) and sex (men, women 109). The penal code and the code of criminal procedure provide for distinct processes for the enforcement of sentences (above all with regard to access to reduced sentencing measures) according to the seriousness of offences and their nature (as well as security measures and orders for medical treatment). The rules also distinguish “high-security prisoners” from other inmates. Multiple processes of distinction have been highlighted110 which lead to the definition of differences between inmates in prison: persons lacking adequate resources, those subject to special surveillance at night, those who have special dietary requirements etc.; circulars, rules and regulations are legion in this regard. Finally, quite apart from the traditional psychiatric 107 Caroline Touraut, La famille à l’épreuve de la prison [“Families and the ordeal of prison”], Paris, PUF, coll. “le lien social”, November 2012, 293 p., p.43. 108 Except, once again, for differences been un-convicted and convicted prisoners. 109 th With the exception of certain activities which can be accomplished together, since the Prisons Act of 24 November 2009 (article 28). 110 Jean-Marie Delarue, “Continuité et discontinuité de la condition pénitentiaire” [“Continuity and Discontinuity in Imprisonment”], in Revue du MAUSS, no. 40, 2nd half-year 2012, “Sortir de (la) prison : entre don, abandon et pardon” [“Release from Prison: between Gift, Desertion and Pardon”], 288p.. 51