In the article, there is a special emphasis on the specific situation within which violation occurs. With an apt analysis of the three types of interdependence that exists between violators and offenders including escalation, nonenforcement and covert facilitation. Each of this concept can make offenders feel like violating set rules and regulations that guide social order. The contemporary idea makes people label others, and as a result, violation becomes more appealing.
He then proffers a paradigm shift in current thinking: authorities also contribute to deviance by means of these interdependent concepts. They create a scenario where violations become natural, and the offender wants to test the system, challenge the social order or explore an existing loop-hope to err. He also offers the pattern of use if this paradigm to current academic and social duties.He argues that social control is both a primary and secondary cause of deviance. The article is insightful: it offers a new perspective to evaluating violation.
One would think that a break down in law and order or violations are primarily due to the offender’s initiative, his family influence, peer disturbance or similar abnormalities in the environment that tilt him toward such obnoxious acts.And then we see authorities as attempting to prevent such violations by putting things in place; this way, they are proactive, preventing or reactive, correcting a committed error. I think the new idea he offers is excellent: it makes us it easier to design violation gadgets, educate authorities and train enforcement agencies on ways to make their activities consumer-friendly rather than create unnecessary suspicion that can easily stimulate violation.
