With the increased specialized role and responsibilities of individuals in society, Durkheim became interested in what holds society together. It provides a response by developing a theoretical framework around two types of social solidarity and its relationships with legal systems. Mechanical solidarity societies tend to be small and emphasize religious duty. People generally have the same jobs and responsibilities, indicating a weak division of labor. It is not a complex society, but it is based on shared attitudes and obligations. Alternatively, societies characterized by organic solidarity are more secular and individualistic due to the specialization of each of our professions. Organic solidarity is more complex with a greater division of labor. To understand the source of social solidarity, Durkheim considers the examination of legal systems as an important instrument for understanding morality. In this article, I will explore how Durkheim might respond that criminal sanctions are less repressive in our contemporary society. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayAccording to Durkheim, as we move from mechanical to organic solidarity, we can observe a change in the nature of crime and moral feelings. In mechanical solidarity, “an act is criminal when it offends strong and defined states of the collective consciousness”. As society becomes more complex and more disparate in the division of labor, the more collective consciousness weakens, which explains the decrease in crimes having the collective object as the main objective. It is these types of criminal offenses against public figures and their representatives that transgress the collective conscience and therefore require violent repression. Since this shift in solidarity diminishes the importance of collective feelings, crime comes to be defined in more individual terms and the punishment for crimes tends to be more lenient. For example, violent crimes against the person were considered damaging to the collective conscience in traditional societies and corporal punishment or, in extreme cases, capital punishment would be the appropriate punishment for such a crime. In our contemporary society, violent crimes against the person committed by offenders are gradually being replaced by restitutive sanctions. For Durkheim, when compensation completely replaces the physical coercion observed in traditional or religious society, punishment is considered less repressive in modern society. Durkheim also argued that imprisonment, varying in length depending on the severity of the crime, tends to become the primary means of punishment. Durkheim suggests that all punitive choices were gradually limited to confinement alone. I mostly agree with Durkheim that modern society is lenient when it comes to repressive sanctions for deviant behavior. The Canadian justice system, for example, does not focus on retribution but rather on the rehabilitation, incapacitation and deterrence of offenders. The recidivism rate of offenders remains very high in rehabilitation programs, which shows that rehabilitation is less repressive than retribution. Additionally, many offenders who commit violent crimes such as homicide and sexual assault in Canada receive lenient prison sentences instead of the corporal punishments seen in mainstream societies., 2015.