Introduction “In discussing deviance, whether criminal deviance or deviance of genius for good or genius for ill, there are no absolute standards. At some time or another, some form of society or another has defined almost all forms of behavior that we now call ‘criminal’ as desirable for the functioning of that form of society. Different societies today define criminal behavior in different ways. … Human actions, even as interpreted within a society at a fixed time, do not divide into black and white, good and bad, functional and dysfunctional. The divisions into crime and no crime, into what are regarded as health and ill health, are cutting points on a continuum”. [Wilkins, 2003] This is a general picture of human actions provided by Leslie Wilkins, which sets the distinction between the alternative conceptions about the good and the bad. Indeed, as Wilkins relates, the universal examples of social deviance are quite difficult to distinguish for they differ according to the variety of different aspects. Globally, the first and the foremost aspect covers the established cultural peculiarities of a particular nation. Locally, this is the context to define whether the action has any relevance and social acceptance, which either considers the social role of a person, age characteristics, and the age, this person lives in. The aspect of time plays an important role in analyzing a potentially deviant behavior for, even within the same culture, the customs and preconceptions are subjected to constant transformations and may quite differ throughout the century. Deviant action occurs being followed by a simple recipe: blending. The latter implies that it is enough to apply a usual action in irrelevant context and the dish is prepared. Indeed, one only has to replace the setting of the socially accepted situation or custom, and it would be considered inappropriate and opposing the established norms. Frequently, the results of such situations are diverse and can induce either smiles and confusion or even the risk of being sentenced, especially in the countries, where the law system and rights defense are best developed. Generally, the actions of a person represent a combination of deviance and what is regarded to be a normal behavior. However, the definition of the both is quite relative and controversial issue, for at a time the action may be considered as deviation and as social conformance depending on which position is taken. Hence, a situation under consideration to refer to the deviant or ‘normal’ requires thorough examinations including the variety of aspects. Experimental Part This paper is devoted to summarizing the results of sociological experiment, which would practically demonstrate the management of a deliberate deviant action with a low degree of hazard. The work will analyze the primary and the secondary deviance, where “ primary deviance refers to the initial acts of individuals that call out the societal response, while secondary deviance refers to the ensuing problem that arise from the societal response to the initial acts”. [Lemert, 2005] Hence, the primary deviance implies the action itself and the premises to this action, which either represents the context to the situation, discovering the psychological state of an ‘a