Author: Moskos

Here’s an excellent review from Professor Arnold Ages published in the Jewish Post & Opinion.

This is what the industry calls “a sleeper book.” There is no doubt that it will soon be auctioned off as a film script.

Peter Moskos, a professor at the City University of New York, researched his Harvard Ph.D. dissertation in a most unusual way: He joined the Baltimore Police and after graduation from the Academy, was assigned to Baltimore’s toughest district, the Eastern.

Moskos did not hide the purpose of his enrollment and for a year and a half he joined fellow police officers pursuing the bad guys and in so doing learned important things about the criminal justice system.

His book, however, is not only a description of the daily activities of the men in blue but also a meditation of the Black underclass, the drug war and the ethics of his fellow officers. This reviewer has not read a more objective, incisive and intelligent account of police work.

There is criticism galore in his essay—of the irrelevance of the police training academy, of the targeting of poor Blacks and of the misguided drug policies of the American government.

With regard to those with whom he served, Moskos has high regard for their dedication and honesty and observes that few police officers would jeopardize their pension benefits by becoming “dirty,” the name for corrupt cops. He admits that there are some, but they are few in number.

While violence is endemic in the area where Moskos served, few police officers, he says are victimized by gun violence: Most fatalities among the police occur as a result of auto accidents. The author himself lost a colleague in that way.

One interesting element in this essay pivots on the arrest phenomenon. It is well known that police everywhere are expected to fill their arrest quotas. Baltimore is no different. But what is not known is that police officers receive overtime pay for court appearances and this can result in handsome monetary rewards.

Moskos’s graphic descriptions of the drug culture in Baltimore’s Eastern District are the most detailed and analytical to be found anywhere. The author offers a comprehensive look at the “stoops” abandoned buildings, lookouts and benches where drug transactions occur. He also zeroes in on the personnel involved in the drug trade and provides ample details about the police’s efforts to inhibit that “business.” One of the surprising revelations that emerge from his reportage is that, except for the major bosses, street level entrepreneurs make relatively little money.

Their clientele, the author notes, use a form of English language that is sui generis. “Bank” means to hit; “bounce” is to leave; “hoppers” are troublesome young people; “cousin” in a close friend; “fall out” is to faint; “zinc” is a sing. Mastering this linguistic tool is important for police officers because ignorance in this area can lead to misunderstandings when interrogating suspects. “Snitch” is another word popular in Baltimore’s Eastern District, and it is a despised term. In fact, the phrases “snitches get stitches,” more or less sums up the scorn in which such people are held.

What distinguishes Moskos’s book from similar ones is the author’s plea for greater flexibility in addressing the rampant drug crisis. He characterizes the current ideology as prohibition—much like that which paralyzed the United States in the 1920s. Ultimately prohibition failed and Moskos feels that there are lessons to be learned from the experience.

Citing the example of Holland, where addicts can the drugs they need, Moskos argues that de-criminalizing the illegal drug industry will no de-stabilize the American moral compass and that tax revenues from the legitimate purchase of hard drugs will fill the coffers of government.

The reason the author is so passionate about his advocacy is because he has seen close hand what the alternative is in the microcosm of Baltimore’s Eastern District, where pandemonium reigns for its majority of poor Black inhabitants.

There’s an article in Baltimore’s City Paper about my book. It’s a bit harsh and kind of snarky (right down to the ? in the headline), but I’ve got thick skin. It’s quite insightful when he’s not slagging me off personally. And he did very well with the material from the phone interview (really).

He likes my book, so perhaps I shouldn’t complain. It isn’t in the nature of an alternative papers to write gushing reviews.

As an objective reader, which I’m not, I enjoyed it. As an author, I’m very happy for the publicity.

The review did leave me with three unanswered questions. I wrote the author. Maybe he’ll get back to me.

1) Did he really think Cop in the Hoodwas just laying around in the “to publish” pile and then “dusted off” by Princeton University Press when they announced The Wire was coming to an end?

2) How come he and the fact checkers (who actually did call) from City Papercouldn’t get my age right?

3) Why say it’s been nine years since I’ve been a cop when it’s been seven? The point would have been just as valid… but he would have had the privilege of actually being right. Nine years ago I wasn’t even in Baltimore.

As they say in the The Wire, malaka.

Update:
To his credit, the reviewer did get back to me. He apologized for his bad math and write the following:

I didn’t mean it to be snarky. I was reading it pretty closely. The Atlantic obviously liked it, as did others. From a Baltimore perspective, it’s frustrating, because the need for a coherent strategy seems to be an essential point. The City Paper is local, and we have to address the issue for locals.

From a Baltimorean’s perspective, the question from the gut is immediately: suddenly Baltimore is famous for its murder rate. In fact, that seems to be a primary artistic resource in this community. When a New Yorker comes down to write about Baltimore’s crime scene — and believe me, getting a New Yorker to come down to Baltimore for any other reason isn’t easy — the first thing people ask: Is that what brought you here? What does this actually tell us about our problems as a city now? Or is Baltimore officially a posterboy for a failed drug war?

Yes, the review was harsh personally, but you have to understand that what you wrote is pretty harsh indictment of our city. When the names aren’t real (as you yourself explain), and the commissioner has done his time and bombards the airwaves with the same old spiels, it’s easy for a Baltimorean who’s following the police force today to wonder how much has changed since then. For us, that’s the primary question, and that’s obviously not the focus of Cop in the Hood. Or of The Wire, for that matter. But it certainly goes hand in hand with the Wire.

Maybe it doesn’t help much, but I really learned a lot about the police force. I also admired your approach to the subject. And you never tried to glamorize anything. I was trying to tell what the book was… and what it wasn’t. It was about police work. It was about the hood. As an academic book, it was clearly well received. But as a book about Baltimore — and that’s what Baltimoreans who pick it up a B &N are going to read it is — it was also frustratingly out-of-date.

My reply:

Thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate it.

I plead guilty to trying not to gear the book exclusively to Baltimore. My editor’s biggest concern (and mine, too) was “why will anybody outside of Baltimore care?” So while the book is about Baltimore, it’s not really supposed to a book about Baltimore, if you catch my drift. So I think your criticism there is very justified. I try and use Baltimore as an archetype of these problems everywhere.

As to the book being set in the past, not much I can do about that. Believe it or not, it took 3 years to write after I got my PhD in 2004. Such is life. But do you really think it’s out of date? Have Baltimore police and the drug trade changed much since then? My police friends all tell me it’s the same as it’s ever been.

I love doing radio interviews. I can wear shorts and be sweaty from biking to the studio. I can cough and drink water and pick my nose (I said I can, not that I did).

It’s so much easier to relax when you’re not wearing makeup, not worried about how you look, and have a cough button.

You can listen to the interview here.

Arnold Ages of the Jewish Post & Opinioncalls Cop in the Hood:

[An] objective, incisive and intelligent account of police work. Moskos’s graphic descriptions of the drug culture in Baltimore’s Eastern District are the most detailed and analytical to be found anywhere. What distinguishes Moskos’s book…is the author’s plea for greater flexibility in addressing the rampant drug crisis.

I love the slogan for the Post & Opinion: “We were politically incorrect before there was PC.”