The saints and the roughnecks

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