There are many reasons that the Roughnecks were considered greater threats. Firstly, the socio-economic levels of the two groups were a major factor in societies perception of the groups. The Roughnecks were from the less affluent side of town, did not have their own cars and dressed in a manor that was considered lower class. Whereas the Saints wore nice clothing, drove nice cars, talked in a civilized manor and had upper class parents that could vow for their children’s behavior. This difference in economic standing led the school, police and the community to look at the Saints as good kids who maybe ‘sowed a wild oat’ every once in a while. The Roughnecks, on the other hand, were seen as bad and not going to make it anywhere due to, but not totally responsible for, their opportunity structure. That is the limited opportunities that the Roughnecks had to either not committe or hide their crimes. Moreover, the economic prosperity of the Saints, their opportunity structure, allowed them the luxury of transportation so they could commit their deviance outside the community. They traveled to the ‘big city’ to drink, and would not congregate where the community could see. This advantage caused the citizens to label the Saints as good and the Roughnecks as bad. The idea of labeling theory comes in here, were society has marked the Roughnecks as bad and the Saints as good. Consequently, the ‘stickiness’ of the Roughnecks labels led to their secondary deviance. That their small primary devianceses that they committed, the petty theft and fighting that occurred occasionally, has now become part of their persona. That basically the Roughnecks have structured their lives around the perceived deviance that they commit. Being judged in the community as deviant led them to act in an ever-increasing deviant manner.
The behavior of the Saints goes against the conventional thinking that only bad people commit crimes. The community’s perception that he Saints were ‘good’ kids and had a serious future, led many to think that they would not act defiantly. Teachers for instance gave them the benefit of the doubt when it came to grades and missing classes. The deviance committed by these teenagers is seen that labeling hides many of the truths about the way people act. That deviance can and is committed by everyone. Yet, if you are labeled as a person who is good, the act is either lessened in severity or not believed. Furthermore, the idea of neutralization and Situational ethics is evident in the idea that the Saints commit deviance but are not perceived as deviant. Situation ethics is defined by Joseph Fletcher as, “that this position is based on the notion that any action may be considered good or bad depending on the social circumstances”(LaBeff, Clark, Haines, Diekhoff, Pg. 270). The social circumstances for the Saints where such that however deviant their actions they were considered good kids just having a little fun. Thus, their actions can be ‘neutralized’ by relying on certain accuses such as teenage fun. They are not considered deviant because society has labeled them and their actions as somewhat acceptable. Whereas the Roughnecks have been labeled and perceived as bad.
Situational ethics and neutralization are explained more concretely in LaBeff, Clark, Haines and Diekhoff’s study. They examined cheating that goes on at college campuses. By taking surveys, there were able to deduce that many college students cheat, some on a regular basis, yet the cheaters believe that their actions are justified and expectable because of neutralization. That is that neutralization is “…an unrecognized extension of defenses to crime, in the form of justifications…” LaBeff, Clark, Haines, Diekhoff, Pg. 271) These justifications don’t necessarily mean that the student committing the act is right, but that he has a reason to commit it. The neutralization techniques are broken up into five categories; denial of responsibility, condemnation of the condemners, appeal to higher loyalties, denial of victim and denial of injury. Denial of responsibility is “a declaration by the offenders that, in light of circumstances beyond their control, they cannot be held accountable for their actions.” (LaBeef, Clack, Haines, Diekhoff, Pg. 272) Basically the students cheat because of outside circumstances, such as failing the test before, that give the student justification for his/her action. Appeal to Higher Loyalties is the idea that a peer or group of peers is being helped by their action and thus they commit the deviance. That if a friend needs to copy a paper, helping the friend is justification for cheating. Condemnation of Condemners is the idea that someone else is responcible for their actions. That the students cheat because of the teacher and thus it is justified. Denial of Victim and Denial of Injury are that either the cheaters actions don’t hurt anyone so they are justified and that the injury committed is much less then what really happens. The cheaters because of these neutralization techniques justified their cheating and believed that it was exceptable under the circumstances.
