Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The fact of public affirmation of a norm through law and government action expresses the public worth of one sub-culture vis-à-vis others. Because different forms of deviance affect that normative status in different ways, they incur different responses from the designators. Three forms of deviance are disinguished: repentant, sick, and enemy. One form threatens the public affirmation of the norm more than another. The public definition of deviance undergoes changes from one form to another, as illustrated in issues of drinking control. Where consensus on the norm is lacking and deviants become enemies, movements for legal restrictions are most likely. It is not the frequency of deviant acts but the symbolic import of deviance for the status of the norm which is determinative of these reactions.
Joseph R. Gusfield (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: