Saints vs Roughnecks

This week in class we read an article titled "Saints vs Roughnecks". The article discussed 2 groups of boys. One was made up of upper-class white males who recieved good grades. The other was made up of lower-class males whose grades were average. Both groups of boys engaged in acts of deliquency, but the saints always got away with their crimes. The roughnecks were the boys in the community labeled as "trouble-makers". Is it fair that just because the saints are apart of a higher socioeconomic class that they can get away with committing acts of deviance? I do not think so. The saints engaged in these acts more frequently than the roughnecks and constantly put others in danger, but they always recieved the benefit of the doubt. I think this does reflect our society. The upper-class always has a head turned to it because of the fact that they have money. No one wants to deal with their lawyers and law suits so they are let off the hook. I believe if you do the crime you should serve the time. Another thing society disregards is that acts of deviance are not always negative. Something as simple as bringing someone their newspaper can be a positive act of deviance. Something like that is unusual though, so people usually think that type of thing is odd. I wish we lived in a more connected society where everyone respected the way others acted.