ABSTRACT
Sociology can shed light, if not on criminology itself – a subject of which sociologists (Mucchielli 2010) 1 tend to be somewhat critical – at least on thinking about crime. This has been the case since Emile Durkheim’s well-known propositions, followed by those of his pupil, Paul Fauconnet, less well-known but a stimulating addition. To recall briefly, Emile Durkheim considered that crime has a function in society; it is normal because a society without crime is impossible. For Durkheim crime is necessary, and even useful, the generator of changes; crime is ‘a factor in public health, an integral part of all healthy societies’ and the ‘conditions of which it (crime) is part are themselves indispensable to the normal evolution of morality and law’ (Durkheim 1947: book I, p. 70). For Fauconnet, it was the crime that was important and not the criminal or their victim; the ideal would be to be able to punish the crime itself, but as this is not possible, the criminal takes the place of the crime – the criminal serves as a scapegoat (Fauconnet 1920).
