Normalization of Deviance

Normalization of Deviance
John Schumann

Normalization of Deviance
What does normalization of deviance mean? What I have read; in my opinion, I came to the conclusion of this. When individuals in a system, over time, change the rules of what has been found appropriate and safe behavior to one which is less appropriate and less safe because each individual finds that other individuals are changing the rules in the same way.
There are two types of deviance, “neutralized deviance-actors recognize that at some level what they are doing could be viewed as deviant or illegal, but they convince themselves that they have a good reason or an excuse for going ahead anyway. Normalized deviance arises out of a more profound process of collective self-deception, in which actors, for complex reasons, really do not see their decisions as being potentially very risky with potentially very harmful consequences.” (Benson, Simpson, p.148)
Does this process lie only with the offender or does the organization share some of the responsibility? It depends what the situation is. Did the offender do it under the radar or deviated from the normal operation because they under the pressure to get it done or cut corner to save money and time. Then in my opinion I think that offender needs to be held responsible. In my opinion the organization would be responsible if the different departments inside that organization deviated from the normal operating procedure then that organization as a hole is responsible.
The best example of this is the Space Shuttle Challenger tragedy. When they investigated, they discovered evidence that the officials of NASA had been informed of a possibility failure on the shuttle. As they dug deeper into the investigation, they found that some of the departments cut corner and ignored warning because it was such a high priority to lunch the shuttle, and that NASA was under a lot of political pressure to keep the launch on schedule.  
Benson, M. L,...