At the end of his article on the Saints and the Roughnecks, Chambliss asks, “Why did the community, the school, and the police react to the Saints as though they were good, upstanding, non-delinquent youths with bright futures but to the Roughnecks as though they were tough, young criminals who were headed for trouble?” To address this question compare and contrast the activities, social class differences, and societal reaction to these two groups of young men. What ultimately happened to the members of each group? As you answer this question posed by Chambliss think of how he is drawing his conclusions from both labeling theory and conflict theory (organizational imperative). One of the main reasons that the community viewed the Saints and Roughnecks differently although they were doing very similar things is that the Saints had the means to leave town to commit their crimes and poor behavior where the Roughnecks did not. The groups were in different social classes, which effected the way the dressed, and the resources that they had at their disposal. In the Saints social class, they probably had mothers that did not work outside the home, so the way they were brought up and things that they were able to learn and be taught at a young age was different from the Roughnecks who, in a rougher social class probably had to have two income homes to make ends meet or had single moms that were not able to be there as much as they would like, and they were more raised by the systems (daycare, after school care, babysitters) where they didn't get the same upbringing values that the Saints received. The deviant activities of both groups were very similar. The main differences I saw were the Roughnecks often stole things of value, the Saints would "borrow" items and leave them elsewhere through out the town. Both groups of boys had interactions with the police. The Saints were able