Similarly, the separation henceforth maintained between un-convicted and convicted 132 prisoners leads to results of the same nature. This means that when a prisoner’s “status” changes from un-convicted to convicted, they may justifiably wonder what effects the pronouncement of judgement has with regard to the framework of their existence. Under these conditions, it is more difficult to ask these persons to focus their lives upon the prospect of their release, after their sentence has been pronounced. Following measures for the “reduction of congestion” in remand prisons, the management of detention centres, to which types of prisoners are henceforth admitted that are very different from those traditionally accommodated, is a cause of concern for staff and prisoners alike. Furthermore, the mixing within the same wing of convicted prisoners serving medium and long-term sentences, who are in general older and capable of following a certain number of rules of collective life, and persons serving shorter sentences, who are younger and inclined to violence and immediate gain (trafficking etc.), compromises the effectiveness with which both groups are dealt with. The implementation of “sentence enforcement programmes”, confirmed by article 89 of the Prisons Act (first paragraph of article 717-1 of the code of criminal procedure), increases this mixing of groups of prisoners that should be subject to different approaches. Indeed, as already stated, in the main these “programmes” amount to transferring prisoners between a regime in which cell doors are open during the day, to another in which they are only open for a part of the day or to a third in which they remain permanently closed, and vice-versa. As always when different systems are juxtaposed, the most important point is less the actual nature of the regimes than the mechanisms that have been invented for transfers from one to the other. In this respect, practices vary between institutions. In some of them, prisoners may remain for long periods within “closed regimes”. This has every appearance of being a disciplinary measure in all but name, without any protective procedures. In any case, the distinction between these regimes interferes with traditional distinctions between groups of prisoners (for example un-convicted – convicted). Furthermore their implementation therefore increases mixing of prisoners, which is not necessarily satisfactory, as in the case of detention centres mentioned above, with “calm older prisoners” and “young traffickers”. Institutions are often located in unsatisfactory areas. In the reports issued in 2012, it was noted on several occasions that some were not served by any means of public transport. For others, public transport comes to and end before the end of the last visits: thus one detention centre in the West of France (said to be one of the largest in Europe), is served by a railway station which is 2km away. However, the train timetable is not convenient for a considerable proportion of visiting room “slots”. Visiting rooms… The quality of many of them still leaves much to be desired. Shared rooms where families talk to each other in the midst of an indescribable hubbub, with or without screens between the tables; cubicles with large glass-panels, excluding any possibility of privacy; concrete 1 metre-high walls separating the two (“inside” and “outside”) sides of the visiting room. Families are sometimes welcomed in a humane manner, and sometimes not, by prison officers of whom specialised teams have still not been formed, a measure which should be undertaken everywhere 133. These variations bear no connection to particular institutions but are attributable to the various different teams that follow on from each other. Many conduct themselves with total professionalism, but others – a minority – do not. The 132 133 Which is relatively needless, as already pointed out. With the exception of small institutions. 60