Overton’s Window – A Commentary on the Acceptance of Criminality and Scams in our Society and World
By Tim McGuinness, Ph.D.
Overton’s Window
Joseph Overton, a sociologist, coined the term ‘Overton’s Window,’ often referred to as the Overton Window, is a political and sociological concept that describes the range of ideas considered acceptable or mainstream in public discourse at any given time. The window shifts over time based on public sentiment, media framing, cultural change, and strategic efforts by interest groups. Ideas outside the window are initially seen as radical or unthinkable, but with sustained exposure, they can move through stages—radical, acceptable, sensible, popular, and eventually policy.
Joseph Overton’s concept of “Overton’s Window” describes the range of ideas considered acceptable in public discourse at any given time, and this commentary will explore how it applies to criminality and, more specifically, to scams.
Shifting Norms and the Acceptance of Criminality
In recent years, there has been a steady shift in societal attitudes toward criminal behavior. What was once clearly condemned is increasingly seen as minor, acceptable, or even unavoidable. This shift reflects a broad cultural and institutional tolerance for certain kinds of wrongdoing, which affects how crimes are perceived, reported, and prosecuted. As the Overton Window of public discourse shifts, behaviors that were once outside the realm of acceptable conversation are now being discussed, rationalized, or ignored. This normalization poses serious risks not only for public safety, but also for public trust, especially in how we address organized crime, scams, and abuse.
Decriminalization and Reduced Penalties
One prominent example is California’s Proposition 47, passed in 2014. This law reclassified certain nonviolent offenses, such as shoplifting property valued under $950, from felonies to misdemeanors. While the stated goal was to reduce prison overcrowding and prioritize rehabilitation over incarceration, the result has been mixed. Law enforcement agencies and retail associations have noted a rise in organized retail theft, often committed with the understanding that the legal consequences will be minimal. Some criminals openly take advantage of the threshold amount, stealing just under the limit repeatedly with little fear of arrest or prosecution.
The broader cultural effect of this legislation is the suggestion that certain crimes are not serious enough to merit meaningful intervention. This reinforces a growing perception that crime is tolerable, provided it stays within specific boundaries. For those impacted by these crimes, including store owners, employees, and law-abiding citizens, the consequences are very real. Yet, for political reasons, the conversation around enforcement is often muted, reframed, or politicized.
Another example is the California State Senate’s decision in 2023 to remove provisions from proposed legislation that would have made it a felony to pay for sex with 16- and 17-year-olds. Opponents of the original bill argued that such provisions would contribute to the over-criminalization of certain populations. However, critics and victim advocates contend that this move reduces the protection of minors and signals a dangerous shift in how sexual exploitation is handled under the law. Rather than safeguarding vulnerable teenagers, the removal of these felony provisions weakens the legal framework needed to deter traffickers and buyers.
Institutional Failures and Public Response
The creation of the United States Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was meant to streamline federal operations and reduce bureaucratic waste. However, it has been met with resistance and political backlash, especially as internal audits began exposing widespread misuse of federal funds, improper contracts, and fraudulent practices within multiple government departments. Rather than applauding these discoveries, nearly half of Congress condemned the investigations, portraying them as partisan attacks or administrative overreach. A substantial portion of the public echoed this view, choosing political alignment over objective accountability.
This response reveals a troubling trend: when institutions tasked with investigating fraud and criminal misuse of power face more hostility than support, it undermines the very foundations of democratic oversight. If those who uncover wrongdoing are vilified, the incentive for transparency diminishes. The result is a culture that tolerates fraud when it is politically inconvenient to challenge it. This is not just an American problem. Around the world, public institutions are failing to act on credible evidence of criminal activity because the cost of confrontation—political, legal, or social—is deemed too high.
In the United Kingdom, the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal provides a stark example of institutional paralysis. Over a period of at least 16 years, more than 1,400 children—mostly girls—were subjected to sexual exploitation and abuse, largely by organized grooming gangs. Local police and council officials failed to intervene adequately, often dismissing or downplaying victims’ accounts. Internal reports later revealed that authorities were reluctant to act due to fears of being perceived as racist, since many of the perpetrators were from ethnic minority communities. This refusal to address abuse directly, for fear of public backlash, allowed the crimes to continue for over a decade.
The implications of Rotherham extend far beyond one city. It reflects a growing tendency to avoid confrontation with difficult truths, especially when they conflict with prevailing cultural or political narratives. In doing so, institutions risk becoming complicit in the very harm they are meant to prevent.
Implications for Scam Culture
As these shifts in criminal tolerance take root in policy and public opinion, the effect on scam culture becomes increasingly clear. Scammers thrive in environments where institutional responses are slow, muted, or weakened. When the public sees criminal behavior being overlooked or excused in high-profile cases, it becomes easier for scammers to convince victims that no one will help them or believe them. The normalization of fraud and deception filters down into individual behavior, eroding the social stigma once attached to lying, stealing, or manipulation.
The Overton Window has expanded to include rationalizations for fraud. Phrases like “it’s just business,” “everyone does it,” or “they should have known better” become common in the aftermath of scams. Victims are often blamed for being naive or gullible. Authorities may treat scam reports as low-priority. In this climate, scammers operate with more confidence, knowing the likelihood of serious consequences is low and that many of their victims will never report the crime at all.
The broader cultural shift also complicates victim recovery. If society does not consistently condemn fraudulent behavior, victims are left wondering whether their suffering is even recognized as real. This creates a chilling effect on recovery, self-reporting, and community support. It also reinforces silence and shame, both of which are barriers to long-term healing.
The Larger Threat
Accepting certain forms of crime as normal leads to a slippery decline in social responsibility. When norms shift to accommodate criminal behavior, it signals to everyone—victims, bystanders, and perpetrators—that rules are flexible, enforcement is optional, and justice is subjective. In this context, criminality becomes more about who has power and influence rather than what is right or wrong.
The consequences are not abstract. They are personal and societal. Every time a fraudster goes unpunished, or a child exploitation ring is ignored, or a scam victim is blamed rather than helped, the social contract weakens. Trust erodes. The very notion of justice becomes performative instead of real.
To reverse this trend, societies must reaffirm the boundaries of acceptable behavior and reject the creeping normalization of serious crime. This means holding institutions accountable when they fail, ensuring consequences for criminal acts, and protecting victims without political calculation. It also means educating the public and restoring moral clarity in the face of confusion and manipulation.
Applying the Overton Window to Scams and Scam Culture
In the context of scams, scammers, and scam victims, the Overton Window offers a useful framework for understanding how public perception of fraud and deception has changed. The Overton Window describes the range of policies or ideas considered socially acceptable at any given time. Originally applied to political theory, it has since been used to explore shifts in culture, behavior, and collective attitudes. When applied to scams, it becomes a lens for examining how fraudulent activity moves from being universally condemned to being tolerated, downplayed, or even treated as an inevitable part of modern life.
While scams remain legally defined as criminal acts, the level of social tolerance for them appears to be growing. This shift is evident in both the language used to describe scams and in the emotional reactions of the public. What was once clearly recognized as deceit or exploitation is now sometimes reframed as a personal mistake, a misunderstanding, or even a calculated risk in a digital economy filled with shortcuts and influencers. The scammers themselves, who once hid in the shadows, are sometimes portrayed in the legacy media as clever, resourceful, or even entrepreneurial.
This movement of perception suggests that the Overton Window around criminal fraud is not static. It is shifting, and as it moves, it takes with it the cultural and moral boundaries that once protected individuals and institutions from widespread acceptance of deception. This shift does not happen all at once. It progresses through normalization, distraction, desensitization, and a slow erosion of outrage. The consequences of this change are far-reaching, affecting not only victims but the systems that were meant to protect them. Understanding this progression is essential for those working in scam prevention, law enforcement, education, and victim advocacy.
Normalization of Scam Tactics
Scams and manipulative behaviors that were once considered outrageous are now more common and often dismissed as unavoidable parts of the digital world. Think of:
-
Romance scams framed as “online dating gone wrong”
-
Investment frauds marketed with influencer culture or “get rich quick” aesthetics
-
Social engineering presented as clever “hacks” or entrepreneurial grit
This cultural reframing blurs the ethical boundaries of fraud. The normalization of deception in marketing, advertising, and influencer economies may desensitize the public to the real damage scams cause. What was once seen as clear criminal manipulation is now often discussed in softer terms—mistakes, misunderstandings, or even savvy tactics.
When Fraud Becomes Familiar
Note: Society has been dealing with Con Artists and Fraudsters for thousands of years, and had controlled the problem generally. With the advent of the Internet and World Wide Web, what began as an obscure practice 34 years ago is now ubiquitous and everywhere.
Scam tactics that would have once shocked the public are increasingly being accepted as background noise in digital life. What was once regarded as manipulation or criminal intent is now regularly framed as part of the digital economy’s culture of hustle, risk, and entrepreneurial improvisation. The result is a gradual erosion of ethical clarity. Scams are no longer universally viewed as violations of trust and law but instead as unfortunate side effects of life online.
Consider how romance scams are now portrayed. In many public conversations, they are reframed not as deliberate emotional exploitation but as stories of “online dating gone wrong.” This language softens the reality of what occurred. The calculated nature of the manipulation, the financial theft, and the emotional trauma are diluted into narratives of poor decision-making or naïve longing. The result is a shift in how victims are perceived. Rather than being seen as survivors of complex crimes, they are too often dismissed as careless or desperate.
The Influence of Digital Culture
The rise of influencer marketing and online personalities has also contributed to a shifting perception of scams. Many investment frauds now operate under the guise of popular internet trends, often cloaked in the aesthetics of “get rich quick” schemes or personal branding success stories. Flashy lifestyle videos, staged testimonials, and exaggerated claims create the illusion of opportunity and authenticity. Audiences, particularly younger ones, are conditioned to view these as aspirational rather than suspicious.
Social engineering techniques—once associated exclusively with espionage and high-level cybercrime—are now frequently celebrated under different names. When someone manipulates a company’s systems or cons their way into privileged access, the story may be told as an example of a “clever hack” or entrepreneurial brilliance. The underlying manipulation is often ignored. The narrative celebrates boldness, not deception.
This cultural environment creates confusion about what constitutes fraud and who should be held accountable. In spaces dominated by short attention spans and viral content, scam tactics are often separated from their consequences. They become entertainment, memes, or cautionary tales stripped of moral weight. The real damage—to individuals, relationships, financial stability, and public trust—is obscured by language that trivializes or glamorizes the behavior.
The Ethical Line Is Fading
These shifts are not accidental. Scammers and digital fraudsters actively exploit the blurring of ethical boundaries. They rely on the public’s increasing desensitization to deception. When fraud becomes a tolerated part of economic storytelling, it becomes easier for criminals to operate with impunity. The lack of a clear cultural rejection of these tactics emboldens them and discourages victims from coming forward.
The normalization of fraud also weakens prevention efforts. When the public cannot recognize a scam or is unwilling to call it one, educational campaigns and law enforcement warnings lose their impact. If people believe that deception is simply a byproduct of ambition or digital anonymity, then meaningful accountability becomes harder to demand.
Understanding this shift is critical to reversing it. Fraud must be clearly labeled as fraud. Deception must be seen not as strategy, but as violation. Only then can prevention, prosecution, and support for victims regain their strength.
Public Apathy and Victim Blaming
Another major shift in the Overton Window relates to how scam victims are treated. Instead of society seeing victims as injured parties who were psychologically manipulated, there is often blame placed on them for being “naïve,” “gullible,” or “greedy.” This victim-blaming attitude keeps scam victims isolated and often ashamed, which in turn allows scams to thrive unchecked.
If the window of societal discourse now includes the assumption that being scammed is your fault, this reflects a dangerous shift. It implies that criminality is not the problem, being too trusting is.
Are We Moving Toward Accepting Criminality?
The broader concern is whether we are entering a phase where low-level criminality, particularly in cyberspace, is viewed as tolerable or even inevitable. Consider these emerging signs:
-
-
-
Scammers (and most criminals generally) are portrayed in the legacy media as clever antiheroes rather than predators
-
Global scam syndicates (e.g., romance scams, pig butchering) operating with near impunity
-
Apathy from big-tech platforms and institutions, treating scams as user errors, not criminal threats
-
The term “scammer” casually used for influencers or brands that oversell or mislead
This points to a subtle but profound cultural shift: the Overton Window may now encompass a space where deception is not condemned, but simply managed. If this continues, public will and policy action against scams may weaken, and scammers will face less cultural resistance.
Expanding the Overton Window: How Society Is Normalizing Online Scams and Digital Fraud
As cultural and institutional tolerance for crime grows, the implications for online scams and digital fraud are becoming more severe. What once was considered shocking and clearly criminal is now being reframed as part of life online. In some cases, scams are even glamorized. The expansion of the Overton Window has allowed behaviors that would have once been clearly condemned—such as impersonation, manipulation, extortion, and financial deception—to exist in a gray area where the lines between criminal and normal are becoming dangerously blurred.
Examples of how this is happening:
-
- Digital Fraud as a Lifestyle
- Victim-Blaming and Cultural Indifference
- Scam Tropes in Pop Culture
- Algorithmic Blindness and Exploitable Platforms
- The Political Silence on Scam Victimization
Digital Fraud as a Lifestyle
In certain communities, particularly on social media platforms and encrypted communication networks, digital fraud is openly celebrated. Romance scams, pig butchering schemes, and phishing attacks are not only organized and executed at scale, but sometimes shared as status symbols. Scammers exchange screenshots of their victims’ messages or wire transfers in forums where deception is a badge of honor. Tutorials on how to manipulate emotions, hijack identities, and bypass financial safeguards are widely circulated. Instead of hiding in the shadows, digital scammers now operate in visible, even boastful spaces.
This normalization contributes to a perception that online scams are not serious crimes. Many in the public view them as minor or petty, the equivalent of tricking someone in a video game. But the damage done—emotionally, financially, psychologically—is severe and lasting. Victims face shame, ruined reputations, massive debt, and in some cases, suicidal ideation. Yet, because the perpetrators are rarely caught or prosecuted, a myth persists that these crimes are harmless or inevitable.
Victim-Blaming and Cultural Indifference
As the Overton Window shifts, there is increasing public tolerance for blaming scam victims. Instead of condemning the criminals, some people reflexively ask, How could they be so stupid? or Why did they fall for it? This victim-blaming narrative is fueled by a culture that prizes cynicism over empathy. It reinforces the false belief that being scammed is a result of ignorance or greed, not the outcome of sophisticated psychological manipulation.
This attitude serves the scammers well. It reduces the likelihood that victims will report the crime. It makes recovery harder by adding shame to the trauma. And it allows institutions, including financial companies and law enforcement, to deprioritize scam-related cases without public backlash.
Cultural indifference also affects platform responsibility. Social media companies, communication platforms, and payment services often delay action against scammers or provide limited support to victims. Since scam-related complaints are hard to trace and resolve, and since the public does not demand accountability, these companies face little pressure to do better. This reinforces the perception that scams are just part of the online experience, something users must navigate alone.
Scam Tropes in Pop Culture
Popular media has also begun to depict scamming with a mix of fascination and humor. Movies, TV shows, and viral videos often frame scammers as clever, edgy anti-heroes who outsmart the system. While these portrayals are sometimes critical, they also glamorize fraud and blur moral boundaries. The message to younger audiences is clear: fraud is not only lucrative, but also clever, subversive, and socially acceptable.
In music videos, online content, and TikTok trends, scammers are increasingly depicted not as criminals, but as hustlers. This glamorization distorts the public’s perception of what fraud really is and obscures the devastating impact on victims. When culture elevates the scammer as a hero or icon, the Overton Window moves away from justice and toward permissiveness.
Algorithmic Blindness and Exploitable Platforms
Another major factor contributing to the normalization of digital fraud is the role of algorithms. Automated systems prioritize engagement, clicks, and content velocity over ethical evaluation. As a result, fraudulent ads, fake profiles, and impersonator accounts are sometimes promoted rather than removed. The scammers know how to game these systems and often use them to amplify their reach.
Dating sites and social media platforms have become favorite hunting grounds for fraudsters, yet many of these services continue to use weak identity verification systems. Reports are often ignored or answered with automated responses. This lack of real intervention sends a message: digital fraud is a low-priority concern. Victims see that nothing is being done. Perpetrators see that they can act with impunity. The cycle continues.
The Political Silence on Scam Victimization
Despite the growing scale of online scams, political discourse rarely focuses on the protection of scam victims. Financial fraud, cybercrime, and social engineering are often omitted from serious public debate. Few lawmakers have proposed or passed comprehensive measures to support victims, mandate institutional accountability, or fund cybercrime task forces with real capacity.
This silence itself is part of the Overton Window shift. If scams are not considered worthy of political attention, they are not considered serious crimes. This leaves tens of millions of victims with nowhere to turn. The absence of public outrage reinforces the scammer’s confidence and prolongs the victim’s suffering and new victimization.
The Political War Over Fraud
The Department of Government Efficiency and the Political Divide Over Federal Fraud has led to Unprecedented Discovery of Government Fraud
DOGE Exposes Federal Fraud and the Left’s Resistance and the Shifting Overton Window
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), initiated by the second Trump administration in January 2025, has brought unprecedented attention to the staggering levels of fraud within the federal government, having identified hundreds of billions in improper payments and wasteful spending.
According to a Government Accountability Office report from April 2024, the federal government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion annually to fraud, with programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance hemorrhaging funds through improper payments. Medicare alone reportedly lost an estimated $100 billion in 2024. DOGE’s efforts have spotlighted specific instances, such as $382 million in fraudulent unemployment payments uncovered by the Labor Department since 2020, though critics note this fraud was already identified by federal investigators years earlier, though almost nothing was done to stop it.
Despite these findings, DOGE’s aggressive approach—slashing contracts, firing workers, and accessing sensitive data—has revealed a systemic issue: a federal bureaucracy so entrenched in inefficiency that fraud has become normalized, with oversight mechanisms like inspectors general often sidelined or fired, as evidenced by Trump’s dismissal of 17 inspectors general in January 2025.
The left’s reaction to DOGE’s crusade has been one of fierce opposition, framing the initiative as radical and abnormal within the Overton Window—the range of politically acceptable ideas. Democrats and progressive commentators have largely accepted the federal government’s inefficiencies as an inevitable cost of expansive social programs, viewing fraud as a minor issue compared to the benefits of Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlements. This acceptance is reflected in their resistance to DOGE’s actions: Democratic lawmakers have launched investigations into DOGE’s data access, with Senate Democrats probing its handling of federal student loan records, and House Oversight Committee Democrats alleging DOGE is building a “master database” of Americans’ private information.
DOGE’s cuts are going to blow up in their face, warned Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow who worked on government efficiency under President Clinton, highlighting fears that the cuts undermine essential services.
The left’s narrative portrays DOGE’s mission as a reckless overreach, over the needs of ordinary Americans, thus positioning anti-fraud measures as extreme rather than necessary. This resistance underscores a broader ideological divide, where addressing systemic fraud is seen as a threat to the established framework of government spending, shifting Overton’s Window to cast DOGE’s reforms as radical rather than a pragmatic response to a long-ignored crisis.
This clearly shows the level of counter-force that will be required to stop this shift toward criminality as acceptable.
Counteracting the Shift
To push the Overton Window back toward ethical norms and justice, there must be intentional public education, strong advocacy, and a re-framing of scams as:
-
Deliberate criminal acts, not misunderstandings
-
Psychological assaults, not social gaffes
-
Societal harms, not private embarrassments
This also requires elevating the voices of victims—not as cautionary tales of foolishness, but as survivors of calculated emotional and financial attacks. Organizations like SCARS can help push this narrative forward by centering trauma-informed, victim-first advocacy.
Reversing the Shift
To reclaim social norms and reverse the normalization of digital scams, it is necessary to close the Overton Window around criminal behavior. This means reaffirming that deception is not just wrong, but harmful. It means returning to clear moral and legal definitions of fraud. It also means demanding accountability from platforms, governments, and institutions that have turned a blind eye.
Public education campaigns must clearly define the realities of scams, dismantling myths and replacing blame with understanding. Cultural narratives must shift from glamorizing fraud to honoring the strength of victims who come forward. Platforms must be held to standards that prioritize user safety, not just profits.
Most importantly, support for scam victims must become a cultural imperative. Organizations like SCARS have taken the lead in offering structured support and recovery services, but they cannot carry the burden alone. Governments, financial institutions, and technology companies must invest in real protections and treat online fraud as the serious criminal issue it is.
A New Cultural Contract
Digital fraud is not a fringe issue. It is a mainstream crime that affects millions across all demographics. If society continues to accept it as a norm, the consequences will expand in every direction—legal, emotional, social, and moral.
Reversing the trend requires a cultural recommitment to truth, accountability, and justice. It requires naming scams for what they are, holding criminals accountable, and treating victims with dignity and support. The Overton Window does not move on its own. It is shaped by what society tolerates, and what it demands.
The Role of Overwhelming Force in Reversing Societal Normalization of Crime
Restoring Order Through Visible, Consistent Enforcement
As public tolerance for crime gradually expands, particularly in the digital and economic arenas, the need for a clear and forceful response becomes unavoidable. Without strong and consistent enforcement, society risks continuing its slide into a state where criminal behavior is not only overlooked but eventually excused. Law enforcement must serve as a stabilizing force, clearly marking the boundaries of lawful conduct and reinforcing the consequences for violating them. This cannot be achieved through symbolic gestures or reactive policies. It requires an overwhelming, sustained effort to disrupt criminal networks, deter would-be offenders, and reaffirm the rule of law.
In matters of digital fraud, scams, and cyber-enabled crimes, traditional deterrents no longer suffice. Scammers operate with high confidence, often across borders, and increasingly exploit public skepticism, systemic gaps, and disorganized enforcement landscapes. As this behavior continues unchecked, the perception that certain crimes can be committed without consequences becomes embedded in the public consciousness. This normalization only encourages escalation.
Why Scale and Visibility Matter
To counteract this trend, enforcement must be highly visible, rapid, and unapologetic in its commitment to accountability. Public examples of successful investigations, arrests, prosecutions, and asset recovery play an essential role in reshaping cultural expectations. When law enforcement acts decisively and at scale, the public begins to internalize a different message: that criminal behavior is not only wrong but will be met with direct consequences.
This kind of intervention demands coordination between local, national, and international agencies. It also requires updated tools, trained specialists, and digital intelligence operations that can compete with the sophistication of cybercrime syndicates. Above all, it requires the political and institutional will to prioritize enforcement, not only when public outrage peaks, but as a permanent, visible component of societal stability.
Failing to Respond Is a Message
Every instance where fraud or organized scamming is ignored, under-investigated, or under-prosecuted sends a message to both victims and perpetrators. Victims begin to believe that justice is unattainable, and their pain goes unrecognized. Scammers see opportunity and freedom to act. The longer these perceptions remain unchallenged, the deeper the erosion of public confidence in law enforcement and justice systems.
Overwhelming enforcement does not mean indiscriminate force. It means strategic, consistent application of resources to dismantle networks, stop repeat offenders, and build prosecutorial capacity. It means restoring consequences as a public fact rather than a rare outcome. It means making crime unprofitable again.
Setting a New Standard
Just as societal norms shifted gradually to accommodate higher tolerance for crime, they can also shift back with the right level of forceful adjustment. However, this reversal requires more than words or awareness campaigns. It requires sustained pressure, tangible outcomes, and broad institutional alignment. Enforcement at scale must be the foundation upon which reform is built. Without it, public perception will continue to drift, and with it, so will the social contract that holds institutions together.
Reclaiming Society Through Justice and Enforcement
The Overton Window, has shifted alarmingly in the United States, with growing tolerance for criminality threatening societal stability.
By May 2025, urban centers report a 20 percent rise in violent crime since 2020, according to FBI data, yet progressive policies like defunding police and reducing prosecutions have gained traction, normalizing lawlessness. Shoplifting, once a prosecutable offense, is often ignored in cities like San Francisco, where retailers report losses exceeding $1 billion annually. Public sentiment, particularly among left-leaning groups, increasingly views criminal behavior as a byproduct of systemic inequality rather than individual responsibility.
Crime is just a symptom of poverty, a community activist claimed at a recent city council meeting, reflecting a mindset that excuses rather than condemns.
This shift has emboldened criminals, with repeat offenders facing little consequence, as seen in New York, where bail reform allows 70 percent of felony suspects to be released without bail, per state records. This acceptance of criminality undermines the rule of law, eroding public safety and trust in institutions, and it demands a robust response to restore order.
Government, justice systems, and law enforcement can reclaim society by taking concrete steps to shift the Overton Window back toward accountability.
- First, Congress should pass legislation mandating federal grants for states that implement stricter sentencing laws, ensuring mandatory minimums of at least five years for repeat violent offenders to deter recidivism; states like Texas, which saw a 15 percent drop in crime after increasing penalties in 2023, provide a model.
- Second, the Department of Justice should allocate an additional $2 billion annually to restore and expand law enforcement funding, prioritizing recruitment and training for 50,000 new community police officers nationwide to rebuild trust while maintaining a visible presence, as seen in Miami’s 12 percent decrease in property crimes after a 10 percent budget increase in 2024.
- Third, the Attorney General should issue guidelines requiring district attorneys to prosecute all crimes, including misdemeanors, with a target of 90 percent prosecution rates for offenses like shoplifting under $950 to curb retail theft, a policy shift advocated by retail associations.
- Fourth, the Department of Education should require the integration of crime awareness into school curriculums, mandating annual programs for students in grades 6-12 to educate them on the consequences of criminal behavior, aiming to reduce juvenile delinquency by 20 percent within five years.
- Finally, the White House should launch a national public awareness campaign, investing $500 million over two years to highlight the societal cost of crime through media ads and community events, using real data to counter narratives that excuse lawlessness, aiming to shift public opinion by 15 percent toward supporting stricter enforcement within three years. This should include a new media channel, required to be carried by all Cable Providers, called ‘JUSTICE TV’ and managed by the Justice Department to provide news and stories of crimes and criminals, law enforcement and justice, similar to C-SPAN. This would let the country see what is really happening without the legacy media filters and bias, especially showing victims’ stories.
By implementing these steps, authorities can redefine acceptable discourse, making criminality intolerable and restoring a culture of law and order that protects communities and upholds justice.
Conclusion
The Overton Window offers a powerful framework for understanding the shifting public perception of scams and broader criminal behavior. Once considered unthinkable, many forms of fraud, deception, and manipulation are now met with indifference or even tacit acceptance. This shift is not limited to isolated incidents or niche communities. It reflects a growing tolerance, enabled by media portrayals, weakened institutional responses, cultural glamorization, and political inaction. As a result, scams that once elicited outrage are now reframed as mistakes, lifestyle risks, or clever strategies, while victims face skepticism or blame.
The implications of this shift are serious. Scammers operate with greater boldness, knowing that enforcement is inconsistent and that public empathy for victims is fragile. Institutions that once protected the vulnerable are now slow to act or distracted by political considerations. Meanwhile, victims are left isolated, unsure if their experiences will be believed or even recognized. The result is not just an increase in crime, but a weakening of societal cohesion and moral boundaries.
Reversing this trend requires direct and coordinated action. Law enforcement must be empowered to apply overwhelming and visible force against digital and economic crimes. Institutions must be held accountable for tolerating fraud. Cultural narratives must shift back to clearly labeling deception as a serious harm. Public awareness must rise to match the evolving threat.
Scams are not misunderstandings. They are calculated acts of harm. Victims are not foolish; they are targeted. Criminals are not clever; they are predators. These truths must become immovable again within the public discourse. The Overton Window does not move on its own. It moves because of what society tolerates. Now is the time to make clear what will no longer be tolerated.
Public perception of scams and criminal fraud has undergone a profound shift. The Overton Window—the boundary of what is considered socially acceptable discourse—has expanded to include excuses for criminality, rebranding of fraud as entrepreneurial behavior, and even glamorization of scams in media. As deception becomes normalized, society loses its moral clarity. Once-outrageous acts are now met with muted responses, and victims are often blamed for their own exploitation. In this evolving landscape, scammers face fewer consequences, institutions are slow to respond, and cultural narratives prioritize image over integrity.
The expansion of the Overton Window is not accidental. It is shaped by political inaction, weakened law enforcement, cultural storytelling, algorithmic reinforcement, and public apathy. This has created a climate in which digital fraud, romance scams, and influencer-based deceptions are treated as minor or unavoidable aspects of online life. Victims suffer twice: first from the scam, and then from a culture that no longer clearly condemns what was done to them.
The solution is not rhetorical. It requires a forceful, sustained effort to close the window around criminal behavior. That means restoring visible and aggressive law enforcement, redefining public education about scams, changing how media presents fraud, and insisting that technology platforms take responsibility for protecting users. The future of digital integrity, public trust, and victim justice depends on whether we are willing to redraw the line and enforce it. The window must be moved back, not by chance, but by will.
ScamsNOW!
The SCARS Institute Magazine about Scam Victims-Survivors, Scams, Fraud & Cybercrime
Overton’s Window – a Commentary on the Acceptance of Criminality and Scams in our Society and World
A Critical Analysis of the Current Trends in Society and Politics of Accepting Criminality as Acceptable and Normal
Primary Category: Sociology
Intended Audience: General Public
Author:
• Tim McGuinness, Ph.D., DFin, MCPO, MAnth – Anthropologist, Scientist, Polymath, Director of the Society of Citizens Against Relationship Scams Inc.
About This Article
The Overton Window, as applied to scams and public tolerance for criminality, reveals a disturbing shift in societal norms. What was once seen as unequivocal fraud is now increasingly viewed through softened lenses, described as misunderstandings, clever tactics, or inevitable risks of digital life. Cultural, institutional, and political forces are collectively reshaping how deception is perceived, diminishing the stigma once attached to scams and emboldening perpetrators. This shift not only harms individual victims but erodes the foundations of justice, accountability, and social trust.
As scammers exploit public apathy and institutional paralysis, victims face increasing isolation, blame, and psychological trauma. The normalization of fraud and digital exploitation demands an organized, visible, and overwhelming response through law enforcement, public education, and policy reform. Without sustained corrective action, criminal behaviors will continue to move from the margins to the mainstream, weakening the rule of law and further expanding the societal cost of unchecked deception. Recognizing this cultural drift and reversing it through coordinated enforcement, victim support, and narrative control is essential if society is to reclaim its moral boundaries and protect its citizens from the long-term consequences of widespread criminal tolerance.
Overton’s Window – A Commentary on the Acceptance of Criminality and Scams in our Society and World
By Tim McGuinness, Ph.D.
Overton’s Window
Joseph Overton, a sociologist, coined the term ‘Overton’s Window,’ often referred to as the Overton Window, is a political and sociological concept that describes the range of ideas considered acceptable or mainstream in public discourse at any given time. The window shifts over time based on public sentiment, media framing, cultural change, and strategic efforts by interest groups. Ideas outside the window are initially seen as radical or unthinkable, but with sustained exposure, they can move through stages—radical, acceptable, sensible, popular, and eventually policy.
Joseph Overton’s concept of “Overton’s Window” describes the range of ideas considered acceptable in public discourse at any given time, and this commentary will explore how it applies to criminality and, more specifically, to scams.
Shifting Norms and the Acceptance of Criminality
In recent years, there has been a steady shift in societal attitudes toward criminal behavior. What was once clearly condemned is increasingly seen as minor, acceptable, or even unavoidable. This shift reflects a broad cultural and institutional tolerance for certain kinds of wrongdoing, which affects how crimes are perceived, reported, and prosecuted. As the Overton Window of public discourse shifts, behaviors that were once outside the realm of acceptable conversation are now being discussed, rationalized, or ignored. This normalization poses serious risks not only for public safety, but also for public trust, especially in how we address organized crime, scams, and abuse.
Decriminalization and Reduced Penalties
One prominent example is California’s Proposition 47, passed in 2014. This law reclassified certain nonviolent offenses, such as shoplifting property valued under $950, from felonies to misdemeanors. While the stated goal was to reduce prison overcrowding and prioritize rehabilitation over incarceration, the result has been mixed. Law enforcement agencies and retail associations have noted a rise in organized retail theft, often committed with the understanding that the legal consequences will be minimal. Some criminals openly take advantage of the threshold amount, stealing just under the limit repeatedly with little fear of arrest or prosecution.
The broader cultural effect of this legislation is the suggestion that certain crimes are not serious enough to merit meaningful intervention. This reinforces a growing perception that crime is tolerable, provided it stays within specific boundaries. For those impacted by these crimes, including store owners, employees, and law-abiding citizens, the consequences are very real. Yet, for political reasons, the conversation around enforcement is often muted, reframed, or politicized.
Another example is the California State Senate’s decision in 2023 to remove provisions from proposed legislation that would have made it a felony to pay for sex with 16- and 17-year-olds. Opponents of the original bill argued that such provisions would contribute to the over-criminalization of certain populations. However, critics and victim advocates contend that this move reduces the protection of minors and signals a dangerous shift in how sexual exploitation is handled under the law. Rather than safeguarding vulnerable teenagers, the removal of these felony provisions weakens the legal framework needed to deter traffickers and buyers.
Institutional Failures and Public Response
The creation of the United States Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was meant to streamline federal operations and reduce bureaucratic waste. However, it has been met with resistance and political backlash, especially as internal audits began exposing widespread misuse of federal funds, improper contracts, and fraudulent practices within multiple government departments. Rather than applauding these discoveries, nearly half of Congress condemned the investigations, portraying them as partisan attacks or administrative overreach. A substantial portion of the public echoed this view, choosing political alignment over objective accountability.
This response reveals a troubling trend: when institutions tasked with investigating fraud and criminal misuse of power face more hostility than support, it undermines the very foundations of democratic oversight. If those who uncover wrongdoing are vilified, the incentive for transparency diminishes. The result is a culture that tolerates fraud when it is politically inconvenient to challenge it. This is not just an American problem. Around the world, public institutions are failing to act on credible evidence of criminal activity because the cost of confrontation—political, legal, or social—is deemed too high.
In the United Kingdom, the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal provides a stark example of institutional paralysis. Over a period of at least 16 years, more than 1,400 children—mostly girls—were subjected to sexual exploitation and abuse, largely by organized grooming gangs. Local police and council officials failed to intervene adequately, often dismissing or downplaying victims’ accounts. Internal reports later revealed that authorities were reluctant to act due to fears of being perceived as racist, since many of the perpetrators were from ethnic minority communities. This refusal to address abuse directly, for fear of public backlash, allowed the crimes to continue for over a decade.
The implications of Rotherham extend far beyond one city. It reflects a growing tendency to avoid confrontation with difficult truths, especially when they conflict with prevailing cultural or political narratives. In doing so, institutions risk becoming complicit in the very harm they are meant to prevent.
Implications for Scam Culture
As these shifts in criminal tolerance take root in policy and public opinion, the effect on scam culture becomes increasingly clear. Scammers thrive in environments where institutional responses are slow, muted, or weakened. When the public sees criminal behavior being overlooked or excused in high-profile cases, it becomes easier for scammers to convince victims that no one will help them or believe them. The normalization of fraud and deception filters down into individual behavior, eroding the social stigma once attached to lying, stealing, or manipulation.
The Overton Window has expanded to include rationalizations for fraud. Phrases like “it’s just business,” “everyone does it,” or “they should have known better” become common in the aftermath of scams. Victims are often blamed for being naive or gullible. Authorities may treat scam reports as low-priority. In this climate, scammers operate with more confidence, knowing the likelihood of serious consequences is low and that many of their victims will never report the crime at all.
The broader cultural shift also complicates victim recovery. If society does not consistently condemn fraudulent behavior, victims are left wondering whether their suffering is even recognized as real. This creates a chilling effect on recovery, self-reporting, and community support. It also reinforces silence and shame, both of which are barriers to long-term healing.
The Larger Threat
Accepting certain forms of crime as normal leads to a slippery decline in social responsibility. When norms shift to accommodate criminal behavior, it signals to everyone—victims, bystanders, and perpetrators—that rules are flexible, enforcement is optional, and justice is subjective. In this context, criminality becomes more about who has power and influence rather than what is right or wrong.
The consequences are not abstract. They are personal and societal. Every time a fraudster goes unpunished, or a child exploitation ring is ignored, or a scam victim is blamed rather than helped, the social contract weakens. Trust erodes. The very notion of justice becomes performative instead of real.
To reverse this trend, societies must reaffirm the boundaries of acceptable behavior and reject the creeping normalization of serious crime. This means holding institutions accountable when they fail, ensuring consequences for criminal acts, and protecting victims without political calculation. It also means educating the public and restoring moral clarity in the face of confusion and manipulation.
Applying the Overton Window to Scams and Scam Culture
In the context of scams, scammers, and scam victims, the Overton Window offers a useful framework for understanding how public perception of fraud and deception has changed. The Overton Window describes the range of policies or ideas considered socially acceptable at any given time. Originally applied to political theory, it has since been used to explore shifts in culture, behavior, and collective attitudes. When applied to scams, it becomes a lens for examining how fraudulent activity moves from being universally condemned to being tolerated, downplayed, or even treated as an inevitable part of modern life.
While scams remain legally defined as criminal acts, the level of social tolerance for them appears to be growing. This shift is evident in both the language used to describe scams and in the emotional reactions of the public. What was once clearly recognized as deceit or exploitation is now sometimes reframed as a personal mistake, a misunderstanding, or even a calculated risk in a digital economy filled with shortcuts and influencers. The scammers themselves, who once hid in the shadows, are sometimes portrayed in the legacy media as clever, resourceful, or even entrepreneurial.
This movement of perception suggests that the Overton Window around criminal fraud is not static. It is shifting, and as it moves, it takes with it the cultural and moral boundaries that once protected individuals and institutions from widespread acceptance of deception. This shift does not happen all at once. It progresses through normalization, distraction, desensitization, and a slow erosion of outrage. The consequences of this change are far-reaching, affecting not only victims but the systems that were meant to protect them. Understanding this progression is essential for those working in scam prevention, law enforcement, education, and victim advocacy.
Normalization of Scam Tactics
Scams and manipulative behaviors that were once considered outrageous are now more common and often dismissed as unavoidable parts of the digital world. Think of:
Romance scams framed as “online dating gone wrong”
Investment frauds marketed with influencer culture or “get rich quick” aesthetics
Social engineering presented as clever “hacks” or entrepreneurial grit
This cultural reframing blurs the ethical boundaries of fraud. The normalization of deception in marketing, advertising, and influencer economies may desensitize the public to the real damage scams cause. What was once seen as clear criminal manipulation is now often discussed in softer terms—mistakes, misunderstandings, or even savvy tactics.
When Fraud Becomes Familiar
Note: Society has been dealing with Con Artists and Fraudsters for thousands of years, and had controlled the problem generally. With the advent of the Internet and World Wide Web, what began as an obscure practice 34 years ago is now ubiquitous and everywhere.
Scam tactics that would have once shocked the public are increasingly being accepted as background noise in digital life. What was once regarded as manipulation or criminal intent is now regularly framed as part of the digital economy’s culture of hustle, risk, and entrepreneurial improvisation. The result is a gradual erosion of ethical clarity. Scams are no longer universally viewed as violations of trust and law but instead as unfortunate side effects of life online.
Consider how romance scams are now portrayed. In many public conversations, they are reframed not as deliberate emotional exploitation but as stories of “online dating gone wrong.” This language softens the reality of what occurred. The calculated nature of the manipulation, the financial theft, and the emotional trauma are diluted into narratives of poor decision-making or naïve longing. The result is a shift in how victims are perceived. Rather than being seen as survivors of complex crimes, they are too often dismissed as careless or desperate.
The Influence of Digital Culture
The rise of influencer marketing and online personalities has also contributed to a shifting perception of scams. Many investment frauds now operate under the guise of popular internet trends, often cloaked in the aesthetics of “get rich quick” schemes or personal branding success stories. Flashy lifestyle videos, staged testimonials, and exaggerated claims create the illusion of opportunity and authenticity. Audiences, particularly younger ones, are conditioned to view these as aspirational rather than suspicious.
Social engineering techniques—once associated exclusively with espionage and high-level cybercrime—are now frequently celebrated under different names. When someone manipulates a company’s systems or cons their way into privileged access, the story may be told as an example of a “clever hack” or entrepreneurial brilliance. The underlying manipulation is often ignored. The narrative celebrates boldness, not deception.
This cultural environment creates confusion about what constitutes fraud and who should be held accountable. In spaces dominated by short attention spans and viral content, scam tactics are often separated from their consequences. They become entertainment, memes, or cautionary tales stripped of moral weight. The real damage—to individuals, relationships, financial stability, and public trust—is obscured by language that trivializes or glamorizes the behavior.
The Ethical Line Is Fading
These shifts are not accidental. Scammers and digital fraudsters actively exploit the blurring of ethical boundaries. They rely on the public’s increasing desensitization to deception. When fraud becomes a tolerated part of economic storytelling, it becomes easier for criminals to operate with impunity. The lack of a clear cultural rejection of these tactics emboldens them and discourages victims from coming forward.
The normalization of fraud also weakens prevention efforts. When the public cannot recognize a scam or is unwilling to call it one, educational campaigns and law enforcement warnings lose their impact. If people believe that deception is simply a byproduct of ambition or digital anonymity, then meaningful accountability becomes harder to demand.
Understanding this shift is critical to reversing it. Fraud must be clearly labeled as fraud. Deception must be seen not as strategy, but as violation. Only then can prevention, prosecution, and support for victims regain their strength.
Public Apathy and Victim Blaming
Another major shift in the Overton Window relates to how scam victims are treated. Instead of society seeing victims as injured parties who were psychologically manipulated, there is often blame placed on them for being “naïve,” “gullible,” or “greedy.” This victim-blaming attitude keeps scam victims isolated and often ashamed, which in turn allows scams to thrive unchecked.
If the window of societal discourse now includes the assumption that being scammed is your fault, this reflects a dangerous shift. It implies that criminality is not the problem, being too trusting is.
Are We Moving Toward Accepting Criminality?
The broader concern is whether we are entering a phase where low-level criminality, particularly in cyberspace, is viewed as tolerable or even inevitable. Consider these emerging signs:
Scammers (and most criminals generally) are portrayed in the legacy media as clever antiheroes rather than predators
Global scam syndicates (e.g., romance scams, pig butchering) operating with near impunity
Apathy from big-tech platforms and institutions, treating scams as user errors, not criminal threats
The term “scammer” casually used for influencers or brands that oversell or mislead
This points to a subtle but profound cultural shift: the Overton Window may now encompass a space where deception is not condemned, but simply managed. If this continues, public will and policy action against scams may weaken, and scammers will face less cultural resistance.
Expanding the Overton Window: How Society Is Normalizing Online Scams and Digital Fraud
As cultural and institutional tolerance for crime grows, the implications for online scams and digital fraud are becoming more severe. What once was considered shocking and clearly criminal is now being reframed as part of life online. In some cases, scams are even glamorized. The expansion of the Overton Window has allowed behaviors that would have once been clearly condemned—such as impersonation, manipulation, extortion, and financial deception—to exist in a gray area where the lines between criminal and normal are becoming dangerously blurred.
Examples of how this is happening:
Digital Fraud as a Lifestyle
In certain communities, particularly on social media platforms and encrypted communication networks, digital fraud is openly celebrated. Romance scams, pig butchering schemes, and phishing attacks are not only organized and executed at scale, but sometimes shared as status symbols. Scammers exchange screenshots of their victims’ messages or wire transfers in forums where deception is a badge of honor. Tutorials on how to manipulate emotions, hijack identities, and bypass financial safeguards are widely circulated. Instead of hiding in the shadows, digital scammers now operate in visible, even boastful spaces.
This normalization contributes to a perception that online scams are not serious crimes. Many in the public view them as minor or petty, the equivalent of tricking someone in a video game. But the damage done—emotionally, financially, psychologically—is severe and lasting. Victims face shame, ruined reputations, massive debt, and in some cases, suicidal ideation. Yet, because the perpetrators are rarely caught or prosecuted, a myth persists that these crimes are harmless or inevitable.
Victim-Blaming and Cultural Indifference
As the Overton Window shifts, there is increasing public tolerance for blaming scam victims. Instead of condemning the criminals, some people reflexively ask, How could they be so stupid? or Why did they fall for it? This victim-blaming narrative is fueled by a culture that prizes cynicism over empathy. It reinforces the false belief that being scammed is a result of ignorance or greed, not the outcome of sophisticated psychological manipulation.
This attitude serves the scammers well. It reduces the likelihood that victims will report the crime. It makes recovery harder by adding shame to the trauma. And it allows institutions, including financial companies and law enforcement, to deprioritize scam-related cases without public backlash.
Cultural indifference also affects platform responsibility. Social media companies, communication platforms, and payment services often delay action against scammers or provide limited support to victims. Since scam-related complaints are hard to trace and resolve, and since the public does not demand accountability, these companies face little pressure to do better. This reinforces the perception that scams are just part of the online experience, something users must navigate alone.
Scam Tropes in Pop Culture
Popular media has also begun to depict scamming with a mix of fascination and humor. Movies, TV shows, and viral videos often frame scammers as clever, edgy anti-heroes who outsmart the system. While these portrayals are sometimes critical, they also glamorize fraud and blur moral boundaries. The message to younger audiences is clear: fraud is not only lucrative, but also clever, subversive, and socially acceptable.
In music videos, online content, and TikTok trends, scammers are increasingly depicted not as criminals, but as hustlers. This glamorization distorts the public’s perception of what fraud really is and obscures the devastating impact on victims. When culture elevates the scammer as a hero or icon, the Overton Window moves away from justice and toward permissiveness.
Algorithmic Blindness and Exploitable Platforms
Another major factor contributing to the normalization of digital fraud is the role of algorithms. Automated systems prioritize engagement, clicks, and content velocity over ethical evaluation. As a result, fraudulent ads, fake profiles, and impersonator accounts are sometimes promoted rather than removed. The scammers know how to game these systems and often use them to amplify their reach.
Dating sites and social media platforms have become favorite hunting grounds for fraudsters, yet many of these services continue to use weak identity verification systems. Reports are often ignored or answered with automated responses. This lack of real intervention sends a message: digital fraud is a low-priority concern. Victims see that nothing is being done. Perpetrators see that they can act with impunity. The cycle continues.
The Political Silence on Scam Victimization
Despite the growing scale of online scams, political discourse rarely focuses on the protection of scam victims. Financial fraud, cybercrime, and social engineering are often omitted from serious public debate. Few lawmakers have proposed or passed comprehensive measures to support victims, mandate institutional accountability, or fund cybercrime task forces with real capacity.
This silence itself is part of the Overton Window shift. If scams are not considered worthy of political attention, they are not considered serious crimes. This leaves tens of millions of victims with nowhere to turn. The absence of public outrage reinforces the scammer’s confidence and prolongs the victim’s suffering and new victimization.
The Political War Over Fraud
The Department of Government Efficiency and the Political Divide Over Federal Fraud has led to Unprecedented Discovery of Government Fraud
DOGE Exposes Federal Fraud and the Left’s Resistance and the Shifting Overton Window
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), initiated by the second Trump administration in January 2025, has brought unprecedented attention to the staggering levels of fraud within the federal government, having identified hundreds of billions in improper payments and wasteful spending.
According to a Government Accountability Office report from April 2024, the federal government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion annually to fraud, with programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance hemorrhaging funds through improper payments. Medicare alone reportedly lost an estimated $100 billion in 2024. DOGE’s efforts have spotlighted specific instances, such as $382 million in fraudulent unemployment payments uncovered by the Labor Department since 2020, though critics note this fraud was already identified by federal investigators years earlier, though almost nothing was done to stop it.
Despite these findings, DOGE’s aggressive approach—slashing contracts, firing workers, and accessing sensitive data—has revealed a systemic issue: a federal bureaucracy so entrenched in inefficiency that fraud has become normalized, with oversight mechanisms like inspectors general often sidelined or fired, as evidenced by Trump’s dismissal of 17 inspectors general in January 2025.
The left’s reaction to DOGE’s crusade has been one of fierce opposition, framing the initiative as radical and abnormal within the Overton Window—the range of politically acceptable ideas. Democrats and progressive commentators have largely accepted the federal government’s inefficiencies as an inevitable cost of expansive social programs, viewing fraud as a minor issue compared to the benefits of Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlements. This acceptance is reflected in their resistance to DOGE’s actions: Democratic lawmakers have launched investigations into DOGE’s data access, with Senate Democrats probing its handling of federal student loan records, and House Oversight Committee Democrats alleging DOGE is building a “master database” of Americans’ private information.
The left’s narrative portrays DOGE’s mission as a reckless overreach, over the needs of ordinary Americans, thus positioning anti-fraud measures as extreme rather than necessary. This resistance underscores a broader ideological divide, where addressing systemic fraud is seen as a threat to the established framework of government spending, shifting Overton’s Window to cast DOGE’s reforms as radical rather than a pragmatic response to a long-ignored crisis.
This clearly shows the level of counter-force that will be required to stop this shift toward criminality as acceptable.
Counteracting the Shift
To push the Overton Window back toward ethical norms and justice, there must be intentional public education, strong advocacy, and a re-framing of scams as:
Deliberate criminal acts, not misunderstandings
Psychological assaults, not social gaffes
Societal harms, not private embarrassments
This also requires elevating the voices of victims—not as cautionary tales of foolishness, but as survivors of calculated emotional and financial attacks. Organizations like SCARS can help push this narrative forward by centering trauma-informed, victim-first advocacy.
Reversing the Shift
To reclaim social norms and reverse the normalization of digital scams, it is necessary to close the Overton Window around criminal behavior. This means reaffirming that deception is not just wrong, but harmful. It means returning to clear moral and legal definitions of fraud. It also means demanding accountability from platforms, governments, and institutions that have turned a blind eye.
Public education campaigns must clearly define the realities of scams, dismantling myths and replacing blame with understanding. Cultural narratives must shift from glamorizing fraud to honoring the strength of victims who come forward. Platforms must be held to standards that prioritize user safety, not just profits.
Most importantly, support for scam victims must become a cultural imperative. Organizations like SCARS have taken the lead in offering structured support and recovery services, but they cannot carry the burden alone. Governments, financial institutions, and technology companies must invest in real protections and treat online fraud as the serious criminal issue it is.
A New Cultural Contract
Digital fraud is not a fringe issue. It is a mainstream crime that affects millions across all demographics. If society continues to accept it as a norm, the consequences will expand in every direction—legal, emotional, social, and moral.
Reversing the trend requires a cultural recommitment to truth, accountability, and justice. It requires naming scams for what they are, holding criminals accountable, and treating victims with dignity and support. The Overton Window does not move on its own. It is shaped by what society tolerates, and what it demands.
The Role of Overwhelming Force in Reversing Societal Normalization of Crime
Restoring Order Through Visible, Consistent Enforcement
As public tolerance for crime gradually expands, particularly in the digital and economic arenas, the need for a clear and forceful response becomes unavoidable. Without strong and consistent enforcement, society risks continuing its slide into a state where criminal behavior is not only overlooked but eventually excused. Law enforcement must serve as a stabilizing force, clearly marking the boundaries of lawful conduct and reinforcing the consequences for violating them. This cannot be achieved through symbolic gestures or reactive policies. It requires an overwhelming, sustained effort to disrupt criminal networks, deter would-be offenders, and reaffirm the rule of law.
In matters of digital fraud, scams, and cyber-enabled crimes, traditional deterrents no longer suffice. Scammers operate with high confidence, often across borders, and increasingly exploit public skepticism, systemic gaps, and disorganized enforcement landscapes. As this behavior continues unchecked, the perception that certain crimes can be committed without consequences becomes embedded in the public consciousness. This normalization only encourages escalation.
Why Scale and Visibility Matter
To counteract this trend, enforcement must be highly visible, rapid, and unapologetic in its commitment to accountability. Public examples of successful investigations, arrests, prosecutions, and asset recovery play an essential role in reshaping cultural expectations. When law enforcement acts decisively and at scale, the public begins to internalize a different message: that criminal behavior is not only wrong but will be met with direct consequences.
This kind of intervention demands coordination between local, national, and international agencies. It also requires updated tools, trained specialists, and digital intelligence operations that can compete with the sophistication of cybercrime syndicates. Above all, it requires the political and institutional will to prioritize enforcement, not only when public outrage peaks, but as a permanent, visible component of societal stability.
Failing to Respond Is a Message
Every instance where fraud or organized scamming is ignored, under-investigated, or under-prosecuted sends a message to both victims and perpetrators. Victims begin to believe that justice is unattainable, and their pain goes unrecognized. Scammers see opportunity and freedom to act. The longer these perceptions remain unchallenged, the deeper the erosion of public confidence in law enforcement and justice systems.
Overwhelming enforcement does not mean indiscriminate force. It means strategic, consistent application of resources to dismantle networks, stop repeat offenders, and build prosecutorial capacity. It means restoring consequences as a public fact rather than a rare outcome. It means making crime unprofitable again.
Setting a New Standard
Just as societal norms shifted gradually to accommodate higher tolerance for crime, they can also shift back with the right level of forceful adjustment. However, this reversal requires more than words or awareness campaigns. It requires sustained pressure, tangible outcomes, and broad institutional alignment. Enforcement at scale must be the foundation upon which reform is built. Without it, public perception will continue to drift, and with it, so will the social contract that holds institutions together.
Reclaiming Society Through Justice and Enforcement
The Overton Window, has shifted alarmingly in the United States, with growing tolerance for criminality threatening societal stability.
By May 2025, urban centers report a 20 percent rise in violent crime since 2020, according to FBI data, yet progressive policies like defunding police and reducing prosecutions have gained traction, normalizing lawlessness. Shoplifting, once a prosecutable offense, is often ignored in cities like San Francisco, where retailers report losses exceeding $1 billion annually. Public sentiment, particularly among left-leaning groups, increasingly views criminal behavior as a byproduct of systemic inequality rather than individual responsibility.
This shift has emboldened criminals, with repeat offenders facing little consequence, as seen in New York, where bail reform allows 70 percent of felony suspects to be released without bail, per state records. This acceptance of criminality undermines the rule of law, eroding public safety and trust in institutions, and it demands a robust response to restore order.
Government, justice systems, and law enforcement can reclaim society by taking concrete steps to shift the Overton Window back toward accountability.
By implementing these steps, authorities can redefine acceptable discourse, making criminality intolerable and restoring a culture of law and order that protects communities and upholds justice.
Conclusion
The Overton Window offers a powerful framework for understanding the shifting public perception of scams and broader criminal behavior. Once considered unthinkable, many forms of fraud, deception, and manipulation are now met with indifference or even tacit acceptance. This shift is not limited to isolated incidents or niche communities. It reflects a growing tolerance, enabled by media portrayals, weakened institutional responses, cultural glamorization, and political inaction. As a result, scams that once elicited outrage are now reframed as mistakes, lifestyle risks, or clever strategies, while victims face skepticism or blame.
The implications of this shift are serious. Scammers operate with greater boldness, knowing that enforcement is inconsistent and that public empathy for victims is fragile. Institutions that once protected the vulnerable are now slow to act or distracted by political considerations. Meanwhile, victims are left isolated, unsure if their experiences will be believed or even recognized. The result is not just an increase in crime, but a weakening of societal cohesion and moral boundaries.
Reversing this trend requires direct and coordinated action. Law enforcement must be empowered to apply overwhelming and visible force against digital and economic crimes. Institutions must be held accountable for tolerating fraud. Cultural narratives must shift back to clearly labeling deception as a serious harm. Public awareness must rise to match the evolving threat.
Scams are not misunderstandings. They are calculated acts of harm. Victims are not foolish; they are targeted. Criminals are not clever; they are predators. These truths must become immovable again within the public discourse. The Overton Window does not move on its own. It moves because of what society tolerates. Now is the time to make clear what will no longer be tolerated.
Public perception of scams and criminal fraud has undergone a profound shift. The Overton Window—the boundary of what is considered socially acceptable discourse—has expanded to include excuses for criminality, rebranding of fraud as entrepreneurial behavior, and even glamorization of scams in media. As deception becomes normalized, society loses its moral clarity. Once-outrageous acts are now met with muted responses, and victims are often blamed for their own exploitation. In this evolving landscape, scammers face fewer consequences, institutions are slow to respond, and cultural narratives prioritize image over integrity.
The expansion of the Overton Window is not accidental. It is shaped by political inaction, weakened law enforcement, cultural storytelling, algorithmic reinforcement, and public apathy. This has created a climate in which digital fraud, romance scams, and influencer-based deceptions are treated as minor or unavoidable aspects of online life. Victims suffer twice: first from the scam, and then from a culture that no longer clearly condemns what was done to them.
The solution is not rhetorical. It requires a forceful, sustained effort to close the window around criminal behavior. That means restoring visible and aggressive law enforcement, redefining public education about scams, changing how media presents fraud, and insisting that technology platforms take responsibility for protecting users. The future of digital integrity, public trust, and victim justice depends on whether we are willing to redraw the line and enforce it. The window must be moved back, not by chance, but by will.
Please Rate This Article
How useful was this post?
Click on a star to rate it!
Average rating 4.7 / 5. Vote count: 3
No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.
Since you found this post useful...
Follow us on social media!
We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!
Let us improve this post!
Tell us how we can improve this post?
Please Leave Us Your Comment
Also, tell us of any topics we might have missed.
Thank you for your comment. You may receive an email to follow up. We never share your data with marketers.
-/ 30 /-
What do you think about this?
Please share your thoughts in a comment above!
ARTICLE RATING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
META
CATEGORIES
MOST POPULAR COMMENTED ARTICLES
POPULAR ARTICLES
U.S. & Canada Suicide Lifeline 988
WHAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT
LATEST SITE COMMENTS
See Comments for this Article at the Bottom of the Page
Important Information for New Scam Victims
Please visit www.ScamVictimsSupport.org – a SCARS Website for New Scam Victims & Sextortion Victims
SCARS Institute now offers a free recovery program at www.SCARSeducation.org
Please visit www.ScamPsychology.org – to more fully understand the psychological concepts involved in scams and scam victim recovery
If you are looking for local trauma counselors, please visit counseling.AgainstScams.org
If you need to speak with someone now, you can dial 988 or find phone numbers for crisis hotlines all around the world here: www.opencounseling.com/suicide-hotlines
Statement About Victim Blaming
Some of our articles discuss various aspects of victims. This is both about better understanding victims (the science of victimology) and their behaviors and psychology. This helps us to educate victims/survivors about why these crimes happened and not to blame themselves, better develop recovery programs, and help victims avoid scams in the future. At times, this may sound like blaming the victim, but it does not blame scam victims; we are simply explaining the hows and whys of the experience victims have.
These articles, about the Psychology of Scams or Victim Psychology – meaning that all humans have psychological or cognitive characteristics in common that can either be exploited or work against us – help us all to understand the unique challenges victims face before, during, and after scams, fraud, or cybercrimes. These sometimes talk about some of the vulnerabilities the scammers exploit. Victims rarely have control of them or are even aware of them, until something like a scam happens, and then they can learn how their mind works and how to overcome these mechanisms.
Articles like these help victims and others understand these processes and how to help prevent them from being exploited again or to help them recover more easily by understanding their post-scam behaviors. Learn more about the Psychology of Scams at www.ScamPsychology.org
SCARS INSTITUTE RESOURCES:
IF YOU HAVE BEEN VICTIMIZED BY A SCAM OR CYBERCRIME
♦ If you are a victim of scams, go to www.ScamVictimsSupport.org for real knowledge and help
♦ Enroll in SCARS Scam Survivor’s School now at www.SCARSeducation.org
♦ To report criminals, visit https://reporting.AgainstScams.org – we will NEVER give your data to money recovery companies like some do!
♦ Follow us and find our podcasts, webinars, and helpful videos on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@RomancescamsNowcom
♦ Learn about the Psychology of Scams at www.ScamPsychology.org
♦ Dig deeper into the reality of scams, fraud, and cybercrime at www.ScamsNOW.com and www.RomanceScamsNOW.com
♦ Scam Survivor’s Stories: www.ScamSurvivorStories.org
♦ For Scam Victim Advocates visit www.ScamVictimsAdvocates.org
♦ See more scammer photos on www.ScammerPhotos.com
You can also find the SCARS Institute on Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, and TruthSocial
Psychology Disclaimer:
All articles about psychology and the human brain on this website are for information & education only
The information provided in this and other SCARS articles are intended for educational and self-help purposes only and should not be construed as a substitute for professional therapy or counseling.
Note about Mindfulness: Mindfulness practices have the potential to create psychological distress for some individuals. Please consult a mental health professional or experienced meditation instructor for guidance should you encounter difficulties.
While any self-help techniques outlined herein may be beneficial for scam victims seeking to recover from their experience and move towards recovery, it is important to consult with a qualified mental health professional before initiating any course of action. Each individual’s experience and needs are unique, and what works for one person may not be suitable for another.
Additionally, any approach may not be appropriate for individuals with certain pre-existing mental health conditions or trauma histories. It is advisable to seek guidance from a licensed therapist or counselor who can provide personalized support, guidance, and treatment tailored to your specific needs.
If you are experiencing significant distress or emotional difficulties related to a scam or other traumatic event, please consult your doctor or mental health provider for appropriate care and support.
Also read our SCARS Institute Statement about Professional Care for Scam Victims – click here
If you are in crisis, feeling desperate, or in despair, please call 988 or your local crisis hotline.
More ScamsNOW.com Articles
The Difference Between Panic Attacks and Anxiety Attacks for Scam Victims – 2025
Kaizen – Japanese Philosophy of ‘Good Change’ for Scam Victim Recovery – 2025
Introverts Differ from Extroverts in Recovery Programs – 2025
Jamais Vu and the Collapse of Reality: When You Realize It Was All a Scam – 2025
What is Commitment? 2025
Zebra Theory and Online Predation – 2025
Post-Traumatic Growth – Transforming Pain – 2025
Chasing Justice in Ghana – A Romance Scam Victim’s Story – A Short Story – 2025
A Question of Trust
At the SCARS Institute, we invite you to do your own research on the topics we speak about and publish. Our team investigates the subject being discussed, especially when it comes to understanding the scam victims-survivors’ experience. You can do Google searches, but in many cases, you will have to wade through scientific papers and studies. However, remember that biases and perspectives matter and influence the outcome. Regardless, we encourage you to explore these topics as thoroughly as you can for your own awareness.
TOP OF PAGE