As the specialized role and responsibilities of individuals in society increased, Durkheim was interested in what holds society together. It provides an answer by developing a theoretical framework around two types of social solidarity and its relationship with legal systems. Societies with mechanical solidarity tend to be small with an emphasis on religious duty. People usually have the same jobs and responsibilities, consequently indicating a low division of labor. It is not a complex society, however, it is based on shared attitudes and obligations. Alternatively, societies characterized by organic solidarity are more secularized and individualistic due to the specialization of each of our jobs. Organic solidarity is more complex with greater division of labor. To understand the source of social solidarity, Durkheim considers the examination of legal systems as an important agency for understanding morality. In this article I will explore how Durkheim might respond by arguing that criminal punishment is less repressive in our contemporary society. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay According to Durkheim, when 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 collective conscience”. As society becomes more complex with greater inequality in the division of labor, the weaker the collective consciousness becomes, which explains the decrease in crimes that have the collective object as their primary target. It is precisely these types of crimes against public figures and their representatives, which transgress the collective conscience and therefore the need for violent repression. Because this shift in solidarity diminishes the importance of collective feelings, crime is defined in more individual terms and punishment for crimes tends to be more lenient. For example, in traditional societies, violent crimes against the person were believed to be harmful to the collective conscience and physical 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 by criminals are progressively replaced by compensatory sanctions. For Durkheim, when compensation completely replaces the physical coercion seen in traditional or religious society, punishment is seen as less repressive in modern society. Durkheim also argued that imprisonment, which varies over time depending on the severity of the crime, tends to become the primary means of punishment. Durkheim suggests that the set of punitive choices was progressively limited to confinement only. I largely agree with Durkheim that modern society is indulgent in repressive sanctions for deviant behavior. The Canadian justice system, for example, does not focus on punishment but focuses more on the rehabilitation, incapacitation and deterrence of offenders. The recidivism rate of offenders is still very high compared to rehabilitation programs, which shows that rehabilitation is less repressive than punishment. Furthermore, many offenders who commit violent crimes such as murder and sexual assault in Canada receive a lenient prison sentence instead of the physical punishment expected in traditional societies. I found that Durkheim makes an interesting observation that prisons only come into existence when the, 2015.