The premises of a great number of closed units in psychiatric hospitals correspond to the same concern with surveillance at a low cost in terms of staff. In too many units inspected, the patients are brought together for long hours during the day in “activity rooms”, and kept under the surveillance of medical staff with hardly any more occupation than watching the television or wandering about the corridors. Thus, in their design, places of deprivation of liberty cause an a priori assumption of dangerousness, animosity and relational inadequacy to weigh retroactively upon the persons confined in them. The layouts of these premises and the procedures that they anticipate and accompany give rise to stress and can generate conduct on the part of their occupants, – aggressiveness, and depression – which confirm these fears after the event. Their walls are strange mirrors for the captives, inexorably showing them the image in which they are held by society and confusing their own reality of themselves. Prison security measures, and especially in the case of prisons with sections incorporating different kinds of prison regime, are identical for all prisoners, meaning that an identical presumption of desire to escape weighs upon prisoners serving short sentences, who nonetheless form the majority of the prison population, and multiple recidivists having numerous years to serve.This excess of security overlooks the capacity of acceptance of sentences. The resulting cost in terms of staff and means of surveillance is out of all proportion to the reality of the risks. This expenditure is made to the detriment of arrangements more appropriate to the other objectives of the punishment. Indeed, although the Prisons Act of 2009 maintains that the sentence enforcement regime is aimed at the protection of society, from which imprisonment results, it also asserts the necessity, during the execution of the sentence, to prepare for rehabilitation and the leading of responsible life in order to prevent recidivism205. Similarly, the Public Health Code asserts the right to treatment206, while the circumstance that this treatment is given without the patient’s consent should be without effect upon compliance with this right and the conditions of its implementation. Yet, attainment of autonomy presupposes that premises be made available where the latter can progressively be tried out, exercised and validated. The inspections conducted by the Contrôleur Général highlight the fact that the architecture of most of the premises in which persons deprived of liberty stay do not take these objectives into account. Although the weight of history and building constraints may, to a certain extent, constitute an explanation as to why all means are not yet implemented in order to enable persons deprived of liberty to exercise the whole of their rights, this is not acceptable in the case of the most recent institutions, and particularly for prisons with sections incorporating different kinds of prison regime, where security concerns combined with the desire for economies of scale take priority over rehabilitation. 205 The Prisons Act no. 2009-1436 of 24th of November 2009, article 1: "The regime of enforcement of custodial sentences reconciles the protection of society, punishment of the convicted prisoner and the interests of the victim with the need to prepare the prisoner's integration and rehabilitation in order to enable them to lead a responsible life and prevent the commission of new offences". 206 Article L.1110-1 of the Public Health Code: "The fundamental right of protection of health shall be implemented by all available means to the benefit of all persons. Professionals, health institutions and networks, bodies of the health insurance system and all other bodies involved in prevention and treatment, and the health authorities contribute, with users, to developing prevention, guaranteeing equal access for all persons to the treatment required by their state of health and ensuring continuity of treatment and the best possible health security." 128