week4
CJ 240 Deviance and Social Control
The Saints and the Roughnecks William J Chambliss
Introduction
Saints – 8 promising young men
Good, stable, white, upper middle class families, active in school affairs, good pre-college students
Some of the most delinquent boys at Hannibal HS
Parents and community knew they occasionally “sowed a few wild oats”
Completely occupied with truancy, drinking, wild driving, petty theft, vandalism
No one was officially arrested during the 2 years they were observes
Roughnecks – 6 lower class white boys
Constantly in trouble with police and community
Delinquency was about equal with that of the Saints
The Saints from Monday to Friday
Principal daily concern – getting out of school as early as possible
Played hooky through an elaborate procedure for obtaining “legitimate” release from class
Meeting of a program or activity
Pattern was repeated nearly every day
Average number avoiding school on a daily basis was 5
Went to pool hall on other side of town, café in the burbs
Out of the way places that provided a source of entertainment
The Saints on Weekends
Car was even more critical on weekends
Went to Big Town – population over a million, 25 miles away
Drink heavily, drive drunk, commit acts of vandalism and play pranks
Call obscenities to women, try to pick up girls, drive through red lights and at high speeds, play chicken
Searched for “fair game” for pranks
Patrolman and ask directions – officer lean on car – drive away
Only done in areas where they would not spend much time and where they could disappear around a corner quickly to avoid having LP recorded
Construction and road repairs – move signs, leave area unprotected, commiserate with motorist
Erect barricade in part of road where it cant be seen until it is too late
Abandoned houses – fair game for destruction and spontaneous vandalism
Managed to avoid being stopped by police
Only twice in 2 years – convinced officer it was an error, minor fines
Spirit of frivolity and fun – who was really hurt??
The Saints in School
Highly successful in school
Average for group = B
2 had straight As
Popular, held offices in school
Truancy covering technique was so successful that teachers did not realize how truant they were
When caught – contrite, beg for mercy and plead guilty
Cheating on exams was rampant – teachers gave them the benefit of the doubt
Jerry – exception – failed to graduate
Did not take the pains to cover his absences, talked back to teachers, never referred to as a troublemaker
Regarded as immature and not quite ready to get out of HS
The Police and the Saints
Police saw them as good boys
Rare occasions they were caught – contrite, polite and pled for mercy
The Roughnecks
Townspeople had a bias toward them
Constantly involved with police
Mostly small stuff, stealing
Community’s impression of their delinquency was distorted – in some ways they were less delinquent than Saints
Fighting activities – well known
Usually bt members over something petty
Only 3 times did they fight together
Against a gang from across town, once against 2 AA and once against a group of boys from another school
Community aware of their theft – rarely did they steal alone
3 main types of delinquency – theft, drinking, fighting
Drinking was more limited/ theft more common than anyone realized
High level of mutual distrust bt police and roughnecks
Boys felts that the police were unfair and corrupt – somewhat right
Did harass the boys
boys felt it was uncalled for
Police knew they were engaged in criminal activity – catching them and circumstantial evidence
Their job to stamp out crime – tactics not as imp as the end result
Each member was arrested at least once
Several many times and spent at least one night in jail
Two sentenced to 6 months in boys’ schools
The Roughnecks in School
Not particularly disruptive
Most attended regularly
Teachers saw the boys the way the community did
Uninterested in making something of themselves
Incapable of meeting the academic standards
Willing to pass them despite poor performance
GPA slightly above a C – no one had better
2 boys were good football players
Two Questions
Why react to the Saints as good, upstanding, nondelinquent youths with bright futures and to the Roughnecks as tough, young criminals who were headed for trouble??
Why did the Roughnecks and the Saints in fact have quite different careers after HS – careers which, by and large, lived up to the expectations of the community??
Obvious answer – Roughnecks more delinquent
In sheer # of illegal acts – Saints were more delinquent
Truant for at least part of the day nearly every day
Drinking/ vandalism was very regular
Roughnecks – sporadic – not on a daily basis or even weekly basis
Difference – Roughnecks not able to secure liquor and manipulate excuses to miss class – carefully supervised
Seriousness of offenses
R – stole about $5 of goods/ week
Saints – not costly damage to property
Potential threat of physical harm
R – more prone to physical violence
S – never fought – avoided physical conflict
Did endanger selves and others when drove, pranks
Community reacted as though R was more serious
S – out of character
Reasons
Visibility – R more visible/ S had cars and went out of town
Demeanor – S more apologetic/ contrite
Bias – bias towards R and in favor of S
Adult Careers of the Saints and Roughnecks
Saints
7/8 went to college
3 advanced degrees
1 active in state politics
1 finished med school
1 getting his PhD
Jerry only one who failed
Roughnecks
2 athletes received scholarships and went to college
Married, stable families
2 never finished HS
1 manslaughter and murder
1 small time gambler
Reinforcement
Community responded to Roughnecks as boys in trouble and boys agreed with that perception
Patterns of deviance were reinforced and breaking away became increasingly difficult
Selected friends who confirmed their deviant identity – try new and more extreme deviance
Increased the community’s negative reaction
Process perpetuates itself unless something intervenes
Jack - scholarship
Jerry (saint) – negative intervening situations (parents divorce, failure to graduate)
Selective perception and labeling means that visible, poor, nonmobile, outspoken, undiplomatic, tough kids will be notices whether their actions are delinquent or not
This noticeable deviance will be reinforced by police and community – channeled into careers consistent with their adolescent background