Saints vs Roughnecks

The study done by Howard Chambliss about saints and roughnecks was really interesting to read about. The results of it, however, were not that suprising. It's only logical that the kids with money will get away with more stuff than the kids without money. The kids with money have influential parents who will be able to get their kids out of trouble. It's not that big of a deal for them to hire an expensive lawyer who will make the problem go away. On the other hand, roughnecks don't have the money to hire a lawyer who'll make the problem go away. They have to face the consequences of their actions. Also, the kids with money have a place to go to be deviant and they have means of transportation to get them to that place. Roughnecks don't really have a place to go to be deviant, so they're more likely to get caught. I think our school is definetely personnified by the saints. We live in an upper middle class neighberhood. Most families here are wealthy, meaning the kids in this neighberhood have places to go to be deviant. If somebody is caught, then parents can pay off a lawyer to make the problem disappear. I'm sure there are some roughnecks at are school, but they are overshadowed by the saints. Not everybody at our school is socially deviant, but of those who are a majority of them are saints. Because I go to a school where so much deviance occurs, it's almost a social norm for me. Not that being the "good kid" is deviant, but how can rule breaking be deviant when everybody does it? Wouldn't it just become a norm for our community?