Blog Post #5

In this section, if class we learned about norms and how those who deviate from societal norms are ridiculed and looked down on. We also looked at cases of how different people who deviate from the same norms are differently based on where they are in the class system. Specifically, we learned that those of the upper class who deviate are generally more accepted by society because of the fact that their class acts as a shield in preventing them from facing the consequences of society. Class can be a shield of consequence in that money can be used to cover up mistakes. Wealthy people often have the money to pay for attorneys that help them win cases when that deviance is brought in question with the law. Those of the upper class are also given the benefit of the doubt more than others because they are presumed to be good and honest people because of the fact that they have a lot of wealth.

One specific instance of how class plays a role in society's treatment of deviance that we looked at was the case of a group of north suburban football players who were caught buying drugs near a CPS high school. These students were buying pills from a 15-year-old boy. The football players were seniors in high school. The boy selling the drugs was sentenced to 15 years in prison while the football players were charged with a misdemeanor that would be removed from their record when they turned 18. The question that we were forced to debate was whether the respective punishments fit the crimes that were committed. On one hand, selling drugs is a legal deviance and rightfully so, but so is buying drugs. Both parties took part in the exchange and neither would exist without the other. Had the football players not sought the drugs, the dealer would not have customers to sell to, and had the dealer not provided the drugs, the football players would not have access to them. Most of the class was pretty decisive on the fact that both parties should have been punished equally. One thing that no one could pose a logical argument against was the fact that the system ruined the life of a young boy trying to fend for himself while letting an equally guilty party go, and the class history of the two parties played a role in the punishments they received.

In this section of class, we also looked at the reading "Saints and Roughnecks". This reading was done by a researcher who followed two groups of high school students across several semesters, observing their social habits and how others perceived them. One group consisted of lower middle-class kids who spent most of their time out of their houses hanging out near grocery stores and in the main town center. These kids were by no means the best dressed and they didn't focus much on how others perceived them. They got into their fair share of trouble specifically fights and petty theft. The other group of kids came from the upper middle class and lived in the nice neighborhood of the town. They were the popular kids that everyone wanted to be or be with. They were well respected in school and within the community. Despite their esteem, these kids were apparently more mischevious than their lower-middle-class counterparts. The only difference between the two groups was that the wealthier kids had cars that allowed them to travel further away from the town they lived in to do the bad things they did. The kids with less money were seen doing the bad things they did by those they lived with and were therefore associated with deviance.