"From the late ninteenth century to the 1990s law and punishment have developed in a manner counter to what you might have expected if you were to apply a Durkheimian framework to understanding the law and punishment in a America during this period. With respect to the Southern United States, the law has become more penal, bordering on terror, torture, and desecrationof the body. Lynching and mass incarceration became normalized feature of the law and punishment regime in America. This evolutionary trajectory of law and punishment is counterintutive from a Durkheimian perspective."

1. Explain why this evolutionary trajectory of law and punishment is counterintuitive and problematic from a Durkheimian perspective? How would you apply Durkheimian sociology of law framework to make sense of the anamolous evolution of law and punishment in America during this period?