---

Summary: Several sensational cases have lead to serious concerns in European public opinion as to the way in which society today is able to deal with sex criminals. The realisation that legal and penal action is not necessarily effective in preventing subsequent crimes by the same criminal, public enthusiasm for increased repression with very long and incompressible sentences should be seen alongside increasing pressure for psychiatric help as a humanistic recourse. A certain number of countries have developed legislation to compel criminals to have psychiatric treatment within the framework of sentences depriving them of freedom, or as an alternative to imprisonment. Sometimes this can go as far as compulsory prescription of drugs to impede the libido without taking any account whatsoever of the rules of enlightened consent. Other countries which are traditionally hostile to theories of social defence or criminological positivism have just passed legislation which associates ! the sentence of imprisonment with compulsory treatment, such as in France, where there is a bill of law which would introduce a sentence of five or ten-year medical treatment. This raises many issues for practitioners, which should lead society to better define its expectations concerning psychiatry and the "Power Almighty" that society seems ready to bestow. Almost two decades ago, American psychiatry was shaken by the Tarasoff case. Questions are now being raised in Europe too, and which join certain fundamental issues which were already considered at the time, concerning the confidential aspect of the medical act with respect to legal considerations. This question should be examined in the light of the impact of therapy on such individuals. For some it represents a problem, or is ineffective, whereas for others, it is of vital importance. Confidentiality, enlightened consent, primum non nocere, respect of the patient's integrity ; all these principles which are the very foundations of medical practice seem to be neglected when the question of sex criminals is raised. Does this mean that the psychiatrist is no longer working in the field of medicine when dealing with this type of patient, and becomes no more than a social control worker and the alibi for increased repression ? Will it be possible, by reflection and clinical developments around sex offenders, to come up with a form of compulsory treatment, or at least an order for treatment which would avoid leading the therapists into the same dead ends as the 1970 law on drug addiction ? Should the framework that social control is trying to set up include an incentive to consult a therapist ? Finally, is it a good thing for the therapist to take a stand in what appears to be a true transformation in the way in which society sees sanctions and punishments ?