ABSTRACT
The nature of the consensus posited by Emile Durkheim varied depending on the type of societal cohesion. Durkheim was most explicit in the case of mechanical solidarity. Derivative from a Durkheimian analysis and central to the declaratory argument is the issue of what happens when law’s symbolic power is removed—when a criminal law is repealed. Durkheim was less clear, and perhaps contradictory, about the definitional relationship between civil law and features of organic solidarity. Unlike most theorists, Durkheim distinguishes between types of law so that the resulting comparative definitions of criminal and civil law violations coincide with legal realities while having extralegal referents. W. B. Bankston and J. B. Cramer state that the “Durkheimian perspective would lead us to suspect that, if the reaction of society becomes less severe, the consequence would be a lessening of social solidarity and commitment to the norm”.
