Legal system relies on the concept of rationality and selfishness of human being.  Human beings, compared to other animals, is more rational.  At the same time his concept of self-preservation goes beyond that of animals’.  Rather, the self-preservation concept of human beings extends to self-improvement.  This self-improvement is usually based on selfishness and the legal system aims at controlling this selfishness. The legal system lays down the guidelines that need to be followed by humans, and since human beings are rational the ramifications of his pursuit of selfishness is understood. Logically the probability of that legal retaliation, for the selfishness in pursued act, works as the deterrence factor.

So, a human being who is taking a path considered as unwelcoming and/or undesirable by a legal system usually is taking the same for his selfish interests.  The legal retaliation to such act based on, the above narrated, concepts of rationality and selfishness yields an expected result.  Thus the legal system is capable of controlling it.  However when one is taking a path that is unwelcoming and/or undesirable not because of any selfish reason, logically speaking, the usual response of the legal system cannot be considered as a befitting one. The reason being that the legal system is not trying to control a selfish action.

The above narration shows the lack of legal logic when conventional legal retaliation is made in relation to certain deviant behaviours. Thus, a person who is motivated by a zeal to reform the system to which he is belonging and when in that process he is relinquishing his petty comforts, such a person is not at all deterred by the might of law.  The said person’s deviance is motivated by the retaliation urge against the selfishness of those who are using law as a tool which has resulted in the present state of affairs of the system which they want to change.  Thus, one can identify a change in role-play in the given scenarios.  Here, selfishness of the system is attempted to be corrected by the unselfish deviance.  Supposing that the legal system considers it to be a luxury to accommodate such a deviance and is using all its might to ensure silence, it is actually reverse use of the said logic.  Further, by such an action the state is clearly sending the message that ‘the state does not want anyone to be unselfish’, or ‘the state does not want anyone to be concerned about the plight of others’ or ‘the sate do not want anyone to think differently from the state’ or ‘no one can question the quality of the system’ or  ‘’law is perfect’ and no one need to question it’.