Introduction.sociologypaper xSociology.CoursePaperGuidelines CHICKENTHEIVERYANDTHESOCIOLOGICALIMAGINATION
This sociology paper requires 9 pages with one title page, one abstract page, the introduction (which is written and is attached along with references) and then a literature review, sociology theory analogy, and reference list. I have attached the guidelines, an example of the paper and the introduction, which has been written. The introduction, literature review and analogy should be 5-6 pages so that the remaining pages will get to the Abstract, references etc
FAMILY FACTORS AND DELINQUENCY
By Mary Kendall Dickerson
Midlands Tech College (MTC)
SOC 101
ABSTRACT: FAMILY FACTORS AND DELINQUENCY
INTRODUCTION
In the past few years, the rate of increase of delinquency cases among the young generation is alarming. Delinquency refers to an adolescent under the age of majority who breaks the law. The age of majority varies between the age of seventeen and eighteen, depending on the state. Crime rates tend to rise during the teenage years and then fall as a person gets older. (textbook – add cite) Many sources looking into the issue have associated the increase of these cases on social factors such as family-related factors. As explained by (Dick et al., 2018), social factors like family and close friends have a huge effect on the development of antisocial behavior and delinquency. The extensive research done will be looking into family factors that have been associated with the development of delinquency that includes family structure, family interaction, social setting, and peer influences. Hence it is true that family factors as a social cause of crime and delinquency play a key role.
Family structure is an important element while looking into the reasons behind the high rates of delinquency. As explained by (Boccio & Beaver, 2017), broken families have a lot of influence on juvenile delinquency. Other factors such as low socioeconomic status, abusive or neglectful parents/caregivers, and a poor parent/caregiver relationship are also influences of high delinquency rates as seen in works of literature of (Farrington et al., 2016).
In this paper, I have focused on elements of a family that cause delinquency, with a keen emphasis on family structure, social setting, and family interaction. All of the causes have been represented with utmost clarity thus proving that family factors are a major cause of delinquency.
LITERATURE REVIEW
REFERENCES
Textbook – need to add citation
Boccio, C. M., & Beaver, K. M. (2017). The Influence of Family Structure on Delinquent Behavior. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 17(1), 88–106.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204017727836
Dick, S. J., Forsyth, C. J., Chen, J., Forsyth, Y. A., Biggar, R. W., & Burstein, K. (2018). School and Peers: Examining the Influence of Protective Factors on Delinquency and Age of Onset. Deviant Behavior, 40(4), 476–483.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1438837
Farrington, D. P., Ttofi, M. M., & Piquero, A. R. (2016). Risk, promotive, and protective factors in youth offending: Results from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 63–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.02.014
Course Term Paper Guidelines
SOC 101
1
Course Paper Guidelines:
This course requires a paper be completed and placed into the section’s D2L course drop box by each
student before midnight of the paper’s posted deadline. The paper accounts for 10% of each student’s
final grade. When attempting the paper students should keep in mind several basic requirements:
1. Define all your terms.
2. Apply American Sociological Association style (ASA), APA, MLA or Chicago Style.
3. Regardless of the style you choose (ASA, APA, MLA or Chicago Style) your paper must be broken down
into the following sections/parts: Title Page, Abstract, Introduction, Review of Literature, Theory Section,
Conclusion and Reference Page. Each need to be titled.
4. Illustrate all your key points with detailed examples.
5. Avoid using anecdotal evidence, non-scholarly sources, and personal opinions. Note: Personal opinions
can be presented in the paper’s conclusion.
6. Do not use quotes
7. Apply a value-free sociological approach and the sociological imagination when formulating the paper.
8. Address the chosen topic question fully.
9. Base information presented in the paper on appropriate sociological sources.
10. Do not email in the paper to the instructor or attempt to hand the instructor a flash dive, cd or dvd and do
not give the paper to another faculty member or college administrator – the paper should be placed in the
course’s D2L drop box in the “course paper” area before midnight of the paper’s posted deadline deadline
(before the day after the deadline).
11. Turn in the paper topic and the paper in class on the applicable due or place it in the D2L course drop box
on the date listed below with your name, date, and class section number. When you drop the materials
into the course’s drop box, make sure the document is formatted in either WORD or PDF.
12. Make sure you cite all key ideas, facts, figures, statements and historical data in text and have a
corresponding scholarly reference listed on the reference list at the end of the paper.
The process for creating the course paper can be broken down into two distinct phases:
1. Students will need to select several paper topics, ensuring they are proper topics for a sociology
course.
2. Students will visit the library and locate proper scholarly sources for the paper’s literature review.
Students will make sure these sources are applicable through the sociological imagination. In other
words, avoid sources not scientific in nature or distinct to another discipline or social science.
3. Students will construct their papers by referring to the instructor’s instructions in class for the papers’
development, the requirements and description of the paper assignment in this syllabus, on course’s
site on Desire2learn (https://elearn.midlandstech.edu/).
Keep in mind this is a social science research paper. The purpose of the paper task is to illustrate the
student can properly apply the scientific method and the sociological imagination to the study of social
phenomena. The paper is to be computer generated or typed.
The paper must be presented in ASA, APA, MLA or Chicago Style. style. There is a short ASA style guide
located on the American Sociological Association’s internet site at
http://www.asanet.org/documents/teaching/pdfs/Quick_Tips_for_ASA_Style . Your paper is
required to be typed or computer generated. If you do not have access to a typewriter or computer
then you need to talk to your instructor the first week of class. Do not scan a hand written paper and
place that into the dropbox.
https://elearn.midlandstech.edu/
http://www.asanet.org/documents/teaching/pdfs/Quick_Tips_for_ASA_Style
Course Term Paper Guidelines
SOC 101
2
Your paper should be between 9 to 11 pages of text and should be double-spaced, this page count
includes the title page, abstract page and reference pages. All important information or factual
statements must be referenced in text or by footnote in ASA, APA, MLA or Chicago Style. Do not simply
include a source page or bibliography (a list of sources at the end of the page). You must site
information at the point you present it in your paper using in-text references as well as including a
bibliography.
Paper sources should reflect the criteria of the scientific perspective and sociological imagination. Do
not use psychology sources for a sociological paper. A minimum of four scholarly references is required;
this reference count requirement does not include your textbook, non-scholarly magazines,
encyclopedias, interviews, Wikipedia and non-scholarly internet sources. The research paper is to be
divided into sections and presented in in ASA, APA, MLA or Chicago Style:
Title page:
This page consists of the title your paper, your name, and the date the paper was turned in to the
instructor, the title and section of the course and the name of your professor.
Abstract:
A one paragraph summary of the paper with key words.
Introduction:
The introduction tells the reader what topic the student will be discussing and why it was chosen
(personal experience, a major topic, realistically being able to research it, etc.). This section introduces
the researcher’s specific interests within the subject matter and how it will be explored.
Review of literature:
In the review of literature students should be accomplishing two things. First, the student will describe
the topic he or she selected to research. This description will be based upon a logically organized review
of the information found in the researched sources (newspapers, interviews, texts, books, journal
articles, magazine articles, government documents, etc.). All statements or information presented about
the topic should be referenced. The works cited should support the interests identified in the paper’s
introduction. All key terms should be clearly defined, all major points should be illustrated with
examples.
Presentation of theory:
The student will clearly and in a detailed manner define and describe a sociological theory the student
has selected from course readings or lectures. The student will then, in detail, apply that theory to
explore the nature of the topic: what purpose is serves, how it was created, how it is maintained, the
effect/affect it is having upon society, what social groups or aspects of society it is effecting, how serious
or strong the effect/affect is, etc. This section presents a formal sociological theory, explains it in
properly referenced detail and then uses the theory as a template to access or explore the information
presented in the literature review about the topic. The review of literature shows you recognize and can
apply the sociological imagination to a social subject and the theory presentation section illustrates how
well you can properly formalize and apply the sociological imagination through a scientific approach;
these are the core elements of the paper.
Course Term Paper Guidelines
SOC 101
3
Conclusion:
In this section of the paper the student will present conclusions about the topic based on the research
presented in the paper’s literature review. The primary purpose of this section is to allow the students
to determine if the information about the topic found during his or her research reflected the
assumptions and predictions of the theory they chose. In addition, students are encouraged to present
their personal opinion in this section, which usually consists of a review of what aspects of the
information and theory application supported and/or contradicted their original understandings of the
topic chosen.
References:
The reference section of this paper is the last page and will have the title centered and at the top of the
page. All sites in the paper will be referenced. References will be constructed using in ASA, APA, MLA or
Chicago Style format.
You will be expected to clearly apply ideas and perspectives discussed in class (scientific perspective,
sociological imagination, social theory, etc.) and apply them in guiding the exploration of your paper’s
subject. This is the key aspect of your paper – do not use a psychological, philosophical or a personal
perspective. This is not a person opinion paper. The paper should illustrate your understandings of the
course’s concepts and apply them as they relate to the subject matter of your research by applying a
sociological theory and sociological perspective to explain it. Students must have at least four scholarly
references other than non-scholarly magazines, the course textbook, encyclopedias, interviews or non-
scholarly internet sources (such as Wikipedia or personal blog sites). All references should be used in
the paper and quotations should be avoided.
Papers are the only assignments that will be accepted late; however, the paper’s grade will be penalized
10 points for each day late (this includes Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays), the paper will be counted
late at the end of the day the paper was due. Do not do any of the following with your paper: place in
the instructor’s physical (on dirt) mail box, email to the instructor, give to another instructor for delivery,
tape on the hood of the instructor’s car, slide underneath the instructor’s door, give to a parent or friend
to be delivered, place underneath the windshield wiper of the instructor’s car, give to an administrative
assistant or secretary. It is the responsibility of the student to place his or her paper in the course’s
drop box (under the area labeled “course paper”) before midnight of the paper’s posted deadline – any
other form of submission is varying from the assignment and is unacceptable. The paper must be in
either WORD or PDF format.
1
CHICKEN THEIVERY AND THE SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION
by Chickery Pullet
Midlands Technical College (MTC)
SOC 101 YOUR SECTION
DATE YOU HAND IN THE PAPER
2,727
2
ABSTRACT: CHICKEN THEIVERY AND THE SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION
In this paper I have reviewed the social geneses of chicken thievery. The two most common
forms of chicken theft in America today were identified, defined and reviewed. A group of social
circumstance contribute to the chicken larceny typologies were listed and explored. Social strain
theory was applied to explain how these conditions might encourage poultry theft. Characteristics of
the theory and its assumptions were applied the problem to identify a possible solution.
Key Words: Chicken theft, strain theory, poultry, sociology.
3
INTRODUCTION
Chicken theft is a growing crime in America. According to the latest Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) figures, one out of every three chickens on the market is stolen (Uniford 2007) and the total
cost of chicken theft to American society is over three billion dollars annually (Angleton 2008).
Some sociologists believe chicken pinching is a gateway to more serious crimes such as automobile
theft, burglary, and murder (Heffernan 2008).
Politicians, police, religious leaders, and talk show hosts have all presented different reasons
for this crime wave, formed varying opinions as to why people practice poultry theft, and offered
different solutions to arrest the expansion of an underground fowl market valued at over one billion
dollars (Thomas 2008). In this paper I intend to identify the social origins of chicken thievery and
discuss the two most common forms of chicken theft today. I will then present a single sociological
theory that may explain pullet larceny in all three cases and offer a single solution.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Some sociologists believed that chicken thievery could be traced back to 5321 BC to a small
swampy Hyborian city-state called Thukiran-Cluck based upon the translation of the country’s name
(Dove 2005). But there seemed to be some dispute over the translation. According to Trotter (2007)
the name Thukiran-Cluck is popularly believed to be a Cimmerian phrase meaning “short legged
chicken farmers” (P. 34). However other sociologists insisted that the name actually meant “feathered
goat herder” or “tastes like dead toad” (Brooken and Foot 1999: 212; Mudflap 1967: 3). A
Brythunian research project concluded that Cimmerian language structure allowed multiple meanings
for village names to confuse invading armies in hopes they would become lost and leave (Brythunia
Language Institute and Taxidermy Service 1993). Some sociologists concluded the original meaning
of the village’s name has been lost (Applegate, Plumdoor, and Grapeflooring 2000).
4
In any case, famine set in during this era. Famine, unlike what is popularly believed, does not
consist of simple drought or crop failure. Famine is a condition of agricultural failure brought about
by a combination of natural and social phenomenon.
The Great Famine of 5300s was brought about by two major factors: limited mode of
production and a temporary shift in weather (Tonifau 1943).
First, historians believe that there was a massive regional drought during 5300s that lasted
until about 5447 BC (Brooken and Foot 1999: 212; Mudflap 1967: 3). The Thukiran-Cluck
community had what Smite (2000) labeled a tri-dimensional economy. In this case that consisted of
three major modes of production: coconut plantations, grit farms and chicken ranches (Pile 1977).
The chicken ranches were largely unaffected by the drought. However, both coconut bushes
and grit vines required large amounts of standing water to be farmed in commercial quantities, much
like modern rice farms. Thukiran-Cluck technology lacked modern irrigation techniques. Unable to
store or transport water, the drought resulted in the failure of both the Thukiran-Cluck coconut
plantations and grit farms (Trotter 2007).
The second major factor that contributed to the famine was the Argolisian Invasion of 5318
BC. The neighboring city-state of Argolis was also suffering through the same drought. Their major
mode of production was oatmeal estates (Pile 1977). The oatmeal trees required the same level of
standing water as coconut bushes and grit vines, so they faired no better. Unlike the Thukiran-
Cluckians, the Argolisians did not have any alternative modes of production such as animal
husbandry (Trotter 2007).
However, like the Great Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s and the famous Pelion Shrimp
Famine of 1973, social historians have maintained that the drought did not reduce the stores of
coconut, grit, or oatmeal enough to lead to food shortages. The problem lay in the distribution of the
reduced amount of agricultural products (Thomas and Hickely 1988).
5
Merchants in both city-states increased exportation of these commodities to higher priced
markets by shipping them by caravan to the neighboring city-state Er Mow. Er Mow was mostly
populated by a self anointed patrician class called the Ya Peas. This resulted in an artificial food
shortage in both Thukiran-Cluck and Argolis (Pile 1977).
Faced with malnutrition and starvation, Argolisians formed raiding parties and began to
ransack Thukiran-Cluckian chicken ranches within camel distance for food. They quickly developed
an underground market for the excess rustled poultry. This underground market was so economically
successful the Argolisians broadened their chicken thefts to other neighboring city-states. This
practice remained long after the famine had subsided (Thomas and
Hickely 1988).
Many methods in modern criminal endeavors have been traced back to the tactics of these
ancient chicken thieves (Smithy 1999a). For example, cattle rustlers during the late 1800s in the
American West would hijack entire herds of cattle by waving large sheets of fabric to frighten the
animals into moving rapidly to a desired direction. This approach reduced the number of rustlers
needed to control the herd and increased the profit share for the involved cattle thieves (Tonifidello,
forthcoming). Flag waving can be traced back to camel-mounted Aquilonians who started chicken
stampedes by waving their kilts as they quickly rode by the open grazing fowl (Togurk n.d.).
The use of masks during the commission of crimes was first recorded among chicken thieves
from the Argolisian plains during the last half of the Hyborian Age (Smithy 1999b). According to a
study authored by the Program for Otus Owls Protection (POOP) the Argolisian chicken thieves were
called “fowlers” and wore masks not to conceal their identities but frighten away the chicken guards
(2007: 45). Smithy’s (1999b) findings would support this conclusion.
Smithy (1999b) noted the Argolisian raider masks were fearsome creations, painted in such a
way as to resemble the faces of a now extinct species of huge anthropoid lizards. Tonifidello
(forthcoming) wrote these looters would smear rutting lizard musk on themselves before chicken
6
raids. He felt such care in the creation of the illusion of a horde of aroused lizards on a visceral
rampage evidenced the attempt to frighten the chicken guards not conceal the identity of the thieves.
According to the National Association of Poultry Protection (NAPP), chicken thievery today
can be divided into two large categories: political and entrepreneurial. This distinction is important
according to Smithy (1999b). Chicken thieves vary in motivation and scope of activities so they must
be dealt with differently by society to control. Political chicken thievery refers to a set of crimes
perpetrated by the Chicken Liberation Unification Collective (CLUC). This is a domestic terrorist
group whose agenda is to end “petty-bourgeoisie chicken farming” (Afert 2006: 76). Operatives of
CLUC stage small raids of chicken farms to steal chickens and damage chicken houses.
Members of these groups are usually political minorities in the societies they occupy
according to Tomklin (2003). They are usually poor, largely uneducated, discriminated against, and
scapegoats of majority groups (Smithy 1999b). The ideal culture, the idyllic state of a culture
(Anthem 1954), of these societies holds that all members have equal social and economic
opportunities (Smocker 1984). But the real culture, what actually occurs, does not afford many
opportunities to these minorities (Zigfield 2006).
CLUC propaganda pamphlets explain the purpose of these modern chicken raids is to
undermine both the chicken based economy and democratic government of the society (Platey 1998)
leading to an economic and political revolution. The aftermath of this revolution is believed by the
raiders to empower all members of society (Afert 2006). Members of the organization say the
captured chickens are released into the wild. CLUC operations account for a minuscule amount of
reported chicken thefts (Tomklin 2003).
Entrepreneurial chicken thieves steal chicken for commercial reasons; they sell them for
profit. This is the largest category of chicken thieves (Tonifidello, forthcoming) and the most
organized (Abernathu, Worth, and Brut 1978). They account for the largest amount of reported fowl
theft (Doggerty 1997). These criminal cartels are international, filching chickens from Mexico, the
7
United States, and Canada and selling them in China and France. The leaders of these cartels, often
referred to as the “Chicken Mafia” or the “Feathered Hand”, often use local street gangs to carry out
the actual thefts (Tweakendack 1999a) and then capitalize upon their international business networks
to sell the stolen birds overseas (Zigfield 2006).
Entrepreneurial chicken thievery is largely associated with materialistic societies having
competition based economies (Tweakendack 1999b). The class structures in these societies are what
Doggerty refers to as an informal caste system (1997). These types of class systems do not allow
people to move up the structure from one class to another (Zigfield 2006).
Teakendack (1999a) concluded that since such structures do not offer opportunities for lower
classes to achieve their material goals through the overt economy. Doggerty (1997) concluded that in
such circumstances an underground economy develops to provide economic needs of the poor
classes. Part of these economies consists of the theft, transportation, and sale of stolen chickens and
chicken eggs that provides food and money for the poor classes (Teakendack 1999a).
THEORY APPLICATION
Some sociologists, while acknowledging the distinctions among chicken thief types, hold
both groups can be explained by the application of a single sociological theory: cultural strain theory.
This theory holds people are placed under duress when society identifies a set of goals or objectives
for them but doesn’t provide the realistic and legitimate means to achieve those goals. Legitimate
means can be defined as a law obeying or legal avenue (Thomas and Hickely 1988).
People in such a situation are then forced to become inventive to achieve their goals since
they cannot access them through the means society identifies as traditional and proper (Smitz 1988).
In this case, one method that a person might choose is criminal behavior. For example, a person
wants an expensive car. Society’s rules identify the most common manner for him to achieve this is
by working hard and saving his money.
8
This would involve him practicing deferred gratification. He would likely attend college for
four years. With that college degree he can then acquire a well paying job and afford an expensive
car. There is nothing wrong with wanting to own an expensive car; the problem is the way the person
chooses to achieve it. The theory takes this example a step further by assuming the person doesn’t
have educational opportunities, so has a slim possibility of acquiring a well paying job. The key to
cultural strain theory is the social disenfranchisement of a class or group of people (Thomas and
Hickely 1988).
This theory seems to apply to the historical case of the Argolisian chicken raiders. The
raiders traditionally acquired their foods from the merchant class, but were unable to compete with
the higher pricing of food stuffs offered by neighboring Er Mow. In accordance with the theory’s
assumptions, society had identified both the goals and the means of the Argolisians. These social
factors realistically prevented the Argolisians from legitimately obtaining their goals. So they turned
to non-legitimate means to acquire their food and supplement their income: chicken
misappropriation.
This theory can also be applied to explain modern chicken snatching in America today. In
both types of modern capon thievery described the thieves belonged to a disempowered group. In the
political chicken thievery situation a group of people have been excluded from political influence in a
society that promises all people will have political representation. Chicken theft is viewed as a means
to achieve that political power. In the case of entrepreneurial chicken thievery, the thieves are
economically disfranchised members of a materialist society in which everyone is promised
economic opportunity. In the modern world, stealing chickens is viewed as a means to achieve
economic reward or status. Pilfering fowl is a means to social justice.
In all three cases chicken snatching can be explained as a means to acquire a socially
acceptable goal. As social strain theory holds, there is nothing innately wrong with the poultry
9
crooks’ goals, their method is at issue. The solution would be to establish legitimate means of access
to their goals and objectives that have been blocked from the thieves by society.
This would entail empowering neglected groups. How this is done could vary. Abernathu,
Thomas, Walter Worth, and Brut (1978) suggested political inclusion of lower classes. Chapman,
Albert, Lora Sims, Fredrick Austin, and Gleson (1994) support a redistribution of wealth by
increasing federal income taxes. Brumbel, Able, and Lawson (2003) suggested a three-time-theft-law
that would imprison habitual chicken snatchers without the possibility of parole.
According to the assumptions of social strain theory, if legitimate avenues were made
available to criminals, the likelihood of criminal behavior would decrease. I would suggest Ernesto
and Norton’s (2005) solution: education. The politically disenfranchised in America are largely
uneducated (Fructose 1999). Doggerty (1997) holds that a low education increases economic strain,
prevents people from getting higher paying jobs. People adapt to this circumstance by working
multiple jobs (Zigfield 2006).
According to Nogthian and Brown (2008) second jobs often prevent individuals from having
the spare time to develop and pursue political interests and results in lack of political involvement.
Education would economically and politically empower those people most commonly associated
with chicken thievery, thus supplying them with a legitimate avenue to accomplish their goals and
objectives (Chapman, Sims, Austin, and Gleson 1994). According to assumptions of cultural strain
theory, the advantages of an advanced education might supply people with other options besides
chicken thievery to pursue economic security or political empowerment.
CONCLUSION
In this paper I have explored the social origins of chicken thievery. I identified and defined
the two most common forms of chicken theft in America today. I presented a set of social conditions
that were applicable to all three instances of chicken larceny. By applying social strain theory, I
explained how these conditions might account for poultry theft and identified a solution.
10
REFERENCES
Abernathu, Thomas, Walter Worth, and Inga Brut. 1978. “Chicken Theft Rings: The New Assault
Against Our Youth.” Urban Social Science. 23:1-31.
Abernathy, John. 2008. “Do You Know Where Your Nuggets Are From?.” New England
Trumpet, September 1, A2.
Adams, Dwight. 2000. Explaining Crime Through Sociology. Myrtle Beach, SC: Sand
Flea Publications.
Angleton, Margaret 2008. “Dyeing Chickens: The Growing Black Market.” Washington
Voice, November 19, B2.
Brumbel, Able and Terry Lawson, eds. 2003. Sociology of Farm Animal Theft. Mudruck,
NY: State Community College Press. Retrieved April 9, 2008. (http://farmingbooks.edu/).
Chapman, Albert, Lora Sims, Fredrick Austin, and Linda Gleson. 1994. “Anomie and the Chicken
Thief: A Study in Structural Strain Theory.” Sociologies of Crime. 13:134-178.
Doggerty, Puninski. 1997. “Chicken Thief: A Social Profile.” Pp. 99-183 in Real Crimes
of Society, edited by A. Swan, and R. Duck. CA: McNughton Publishers Limited.
Ernesto, María and Jonathon Norton. 2005. Stealing Chickens: An American Curse.
Atlanta, GA: For The Truth Press.
Fructose, Tonya. 1999. A Social History of Chicken Thievery. Crooked Creek, AR:
William Institute.
Gunderic Behavioral Science Institute and Microbrewery. 2003. Social Characteristics of
Rural Chicken Thief Populations. Artingforu: Republic of Gunderic Printing
Office.
Heffernan, Thomas. 2008. “Accused Chicken Thief Sentenced to Community Service: Losing Our
Brightest.” San Francisco Monitor, August 31, A1.
Smith, Alfred. 1974. Public Crimes in Private Places. Charlotte, NC: Balmy Press.
11
Snide, Bubba. Forthcoming. “The Resurgence of Chicken Theft In Virginia Urban
Areas.” Sociological Perspectives on Crime.
——. 2001. “The New Nugget Market: Marijuana Abuse and Chicken Consumption.”
Western Journal of Social Crimes. 13:288-296.
Snogthian, Herman and Mucusmon Brown. 2008. “Methamphetamine Addiction and Chicken Theft
Culture: An Application of Matrices Correlation Analysis.” Electronic Periodical of
Scholarly Social Sciences. 8:3. Retrieved April 19, 2008
http://www.socialscienceonthenet.org/v8/chicken.html).
Thomas, Art. 2008. “Talking About Real Hot Wings: The Sub Rosa Poultry Market.”
New York Record, August 31, B1.
Tomifordany, Tina. 2008. “Protecting the Flock: Juvenile Delinquency and Chicken
Theft.” The Rural Chicken Farmer, March 19, pp. 12.
Tweakendack, Cecil. 1999a. “Gang Involvement in Chicken Thievery.” Sociological
Perspectives on Crime. 22:15-86.
Tweakendack, Cecil. 1999b. “Patriarchal Culture and the Chicken Yard.” Radical
Sociology. 33:23-209.
Uniford, Amanda. 2007. “The Terror of Chicken Larceny: Funding Al-Qaeda Through
the Black Market.” Crime News Across the Globe, January 3, pp.32.
United States. Dept. of Justice and Social Control. 2003. Chicken Theft as Gang
Initiations: Deviant Ritual Among Delinquents. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of
Justice and Social Control.
“You Say Poultry Brigand, I Say Chicken Thief!” 2008. Rural Criminology
Confederation. Retrieved April 19, 2008
(http://www.rcc.org/public/chstealstop.html).
Zigfield, Herbert. 2006. “The Real Poultry Mafia.” Culture and Crime. 44:123-209.
