Copinthehood.com has moved to qualitypolicing.com

  • It’s all about the numbers

    There’s a quota system in place for attorneys working in the office of U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien in Los Angeles.

    As reported in an articlein the L.A. Times, O’Brien says: “This office does not and never will have quotas for its criminal prosecutors…. To suggest that any attorney in this office must charge a certain number of defendants each year or face discipline is simply not true.”

    Too bad he’s lying. Or at least that’s what attorneys working for him say.

    The problem I have is the idea that our court system should be “efficient.” A factory should be efficient. A bicycle racer should be efficient. Justice is not supposed to efficient. It’s supposed to be fair. In the real world, prosecutorial “efficiency” is just another word for plea-bargain. And a plea-bargain is not justice.

    In this case, the motivation seems to be that more prosecuted cases equals more federal funding. The Prison-Industrial Complex in action.

  • First Amazon reader review

    A round of applause for Generic Guy. I’m glad you liked my book. Thank you.

  • Read my book?

    Then write a review for Amazon. There are still no reader reviews. Especially if you’ve already told mehow much you liked my book… tell the world… in that 5-star-review kind of way.

    No Amazon reader reviews makes me think of that B.B. King line: “Nobody loves me but my mother, and she could be jivin’ too.”

  • In the Economist

    I’m quoted prominently in an excellent article about Baltimore in the current Economist. But it’s a real shame he didn’t plug my book (Cop in the Hood). Or my school (John Jay College of Criminal Justice). But it is still a very good article.

    A big problem for the police (and more so for respectable ghetto residents) is the unfortunate truth that for many young men, gangster culture is alluring. Apart from the low pay and the high risk of getting murdered, drug-dealing is not a bad job, says Peter Moskos, a sociologist who spent a year as a policeman in Baltimore’s eastern district. You hang out with your friends. People “respect” (ie, fear) you. You project glamour. You get laid.

    You also become otherwise unemployable, says Mr Moskos. To survive on the street, you learn to react violently and pre-emptively to the slightest challenge. This is a useful trait for a drug-dealer, but, oddly, managers at Starbucks do not value it.

    Civil libertarians argue that America punishes non-violent drug offenders far too harshly. Mr Moskos reckons that, at least in Baltimore, the people jailed for drug possession are usually violent dealers whose more serious crimes cannot be proven or whose plea bargains have been accepted by an over-burdened judicial system. He thinks drugs should be legalised, though, because their prohibition fuels a criminal economy where disputes are settled violently.

  • Lies, damned lies, and DEA statistics

    The DEA and other prohibitionists have a long history of lying about drug facts.

    In the past, they’ve claimed that the Netherlands drug policy was a “disaster,” despite all statistics to the contrary (especially compared to the United States).

    Here’s the latest. The DEA claims that a ballet measure softening enforcement of low-level marijuana crimes in Colorado is leading to an increase in drugs and organized crime. It’s a lie.

  • Officer shot in daylight gunbattle

    Wild gun battles in Baltimore are unfortunately nothing new. But this time an officer almost died.

  • Bright light! Bright light!

    Bright lights don’t reduce crime. Goodlighting might. Too often people reflexively think that the brighter the street light, the safer the streets. I don’t buy it.

    Lighting sets the tone. Street lighting is no different. If you light the streets well at night (not just bright, but well), people will go out and, without even knowing it, help keep things safe.

    In Holland, they call the concept of creating a nice environment gezelligheid. I wish we would take this concept into account when planning lighting and public safety in our public spaces. Candles are gezellig. Florescent lights aren’t.

    Horribly bright orange sodium vapor lights are probably just as bad as having no light as all. You can’t have a romantic stroll under orange lights. You’ll never want to sip a drink under bad street lighting. Bad lighting makes people look ugly and tells them to go inside. Fewer eyes on the street make the streets less safe. Good lighting sooths people and lets you see the street, the stars, andthe moon. Good lighting makes you want to take an evening stroll and kanoodle.

    This came to mind while reading Eric Jay Dolin’s gripping Leviathan: The History of Whaling in America. Ever since I first read Moby Dick (like 4 months ago), I’ve been fascinated with whaling. In Dolin’s wonderful book, he quotes John Adams making what must be one of the earliest references linking dark streets to crime.

    In 1783, 46 years before Sir Robert Peel established the first metropolitan police force in London, Britain passed a tax that effectively banned American whale products. In 1785, John Adams made his appeal to the British to lift this ban:

    The fat of the spermaceti whale gives the clearest and most beautiful flame of any substance that is known in nature, and we are all surprised that you prefer darkness, and consequent robberies, burglaries, and murders in your streets, to the receiving, as a remittance, our spermaceti oil. The lamps around Grosvenor Square, I know, and in Downing Street, too, I suppose, are dim by midnight and extinguished by two o’clock; whereas our oil would burn bright till 9 o’clock in the morning, and chase away, before the watchmen, all the villains, and save you the trouble and danger of introducing a new police into the city. (Dolin 2007, p. 168)

    The appeal failed. Britain retained its protectionist policies. It’s interesting to think of the role whale oil (or the lack thereof) contributed to street crime and the establishment of modern-day police.

  • Drug prohibition kills 220 in Juárez…

    …and that’s in the first 3 months of this year. And about a dozen of those are police officers.

    Enough!

    Here’s the New York Timesstory.

  • The raw excitment of criminal-justice

    I was interviewed tonight by a good writer from a prominent local magazine. I ate and drank very well, thank you very much.

    It was a nice chat. Toward the end, I was asked a softball question and couldn’t really make contact. “What’s the most exciting thing happening right now in the criminal justice field right?” I couldn’t really think of a good answer (other than my book, of course). That probably says more about me than it does about the field. But the field is somewhat to blame.

    Biking home, I thought about this. One “proper” answer is the field of reentry. All those millions of people locked up are going to get out. What are we, as society, going to do about them? Answer: probably nothing. But there is lots of good stuff going on in field of reentry. But that’s not really my field.

    As for police-related research, I think the most exciting research is yet to be done. There are some people in the field doing interesting hands-on research (Venkatesh comes immediately to mind). But the bulk of researchers generally do out-of-touch quantitative work. There’s more to the real world than statistically significant correlations.

    I think there’s more thought-provoking and real-world value in the average Malcolm Gladwell New Yorkerarticle than there is in the average article in American Journal of Sociology. That’s a shame.

    Why aren’t academics examining the merits of foot patrol? Why aren’t academics more interested in the field of police discretion? Why aren’t more professors really studying why the murder rate went down, what can we do to lower it more, and how can we keep it down? Why aren’t more sociologists doing research that actually involves talking to people? Why aren’t more professors interested in police and crime prevention? The general public certainly is. I don’t have the answers.

  • Tar and feathers?

    One of my fears is that my book won’t be well received by my cop friends in Baltimore.

    I’m proud of the book. And I think it’s pro-police because it shows the shit we had to deal with. Good workers in a bad system. But I’m always been afraid that cops wouldn’t like it because it’s not 100% pro-police. I don’t want to be tarred and feathered next time I go to Baltimore.

    But the initial reports from Charm City’s Finest are favorable.

    One of my academy classmates said he liked the academy chapter and wrote me a good story I’d forgotten:

    I don’t know if you remember, but one day we were getting ready to take a test, and [____] stood up and said, “Sir, you can’t give us the test yet. We have not been spoon fed the answers yet.”

    He never knew when to shut up.