The thesis proposes to apprehend the criminal confinement strictly in terms of the role of criminal court. From a binary classification of criminal confinement measures, centered around the culpability test, two separate movements could be identified. The first change concerns the role of the criminal court in confinement which is based on the criterion of guilt. The study then examines the freedom granted to it in the process of the sentence of imprisonment. It appears that the sovereignty of the judge is subject to a double mutation. While sovereignty appears weakened in the process of recourse to the death of confinement, due to authorities that exercise some influence on him, it is fully devoted to the contrary when it comes to the judge to adapt the execution of that sentence. This development questions more broadly about the meaning and the future of the office sanctioning the criminal courts.The second change concerns the judge's role in the custodial measures that stand in contrast to the foundation of guilt. The judge appears here under construction. The study then distinguishes the deprivation of liberty prior to sentencing, for the proper conduct of criminal proceedings, described as "entrapment-procedural ', those are mainly based on the dangerousness of the individual to whom they s'apply, described as "confinement-security". For the former, the role of the judge appears in search of balance, given the need to balance respect for the presumption of innocence and the needs of investigations. Regarding the second, we are seeing the emergence of an original role, unique, transcending the boundaries traditionally assigned.