MA doesn't F around with Library fines

CHARLTON (CBS) – A Charlton mom says her local library crossed the line when they sent police to collect her daughter’s overdue library books.

Her mom says the 5-year-old girl was so afraid that she burst into tears.

Charlton Police Sergeant Dan Dowd stopped by the home of Shannon Benoit to let her know that her daughter had two books several months overdue which needed to be returned or paid for.

WBZ-TV’s Ken MacLeod reports

“I thought it was way overboard,” says Benoit. “I closed my door, I looked at my daughter and she started crying.”

Hailey asked her mom if the police were going to arrest her. Hailey says, “I was scared.”

They found and returned the books, but Hailey’s mom argues that sending a cop to their house was like pounding a ten penny nail with a sledge hammer.

Even Sgt. Dowd admits he wasn’t real keen on it.

“Nobody wanted to, on this end to get involved in it,” says Sgt. Dowd. “But the library contacted us, and the chief delegated, and apparently I was one of the low men on the totem pole.”

But state law does outline a misdemeanor for such things, and police thought a friendly reminder might make a better impression and get better results than a cold summons to court.

The Benoit’s insist they never got any warnings.

Police are called to go collect library fines from a 5 year old? I am not sure if this is amusing or appalling.

Well, you have to crack down on that behavior while they're young. We all know not returning library books leads to terrorism.

It must be a freak coincidence where insane librarian met dumbass police chief and came up with a plan involving criminal charges over overdue library books. The two of them are probably sleeping together, because only people in love do stuff this stupid.

WiredAsylum wrote:

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/01/02/charlton-library-sends-police-to-c... wrote:

CHARLTON (CBS) – A Charlton mom says her local library crossed the line when they sent police to collect her daughter’s overdue library books.

Her mom says the 5-year-old girl was so afraid that she burst into tears.

Charlton Police Sergeant Dan Dowd stopped by the home of Shannon Benoit to let her know that her daughter had two books several months overdue which needed to be returned or paid for.

WBZ-TV’s Ken MacLeod reports

“I thought it was way overboard,” says Benoit. “I closed my door, I looked at my daughter and she started crying.”

Hailey asked her mom if the police were going to arrest her. Hailey says, “I was scared.”

They found and returned the books, but Hailey’s mom argues that sending a cop to their house was like pounding a ten penny nail with a sledge hammer.

Even Sgt. Dowd admits he wasn’t real keen on it.

“Nobody wanted to, on this end to get involved in it,” says Sgt. Dowd. “But the library contacted us, and the chief delegated, and apparently I was one of the low men on the totem pole.”

But state law does outline a misdemeanor for such things, and police thought a friendly reminder might make a better impression and get better results than a cold summons to court.

The Benoit’s insist they never got any warnings.

Police are called to go collect library fines from a 5 year old? I am not sure if this is amusing or appalling.

The innocent have nothing to be afraid of.

Hey at least the cops didn't shoot their dog upon walking in the house.

Sheeesh, it's not like the tazed the kid or hit him in the face with pepper spray. He got off easy.

Reaper81 wrote:

The innocent have nothing to be afraid of.

And she didn't! [sarcasm]The cop wasn't there to pick her up for the misdemeanor - he should be fired for not following the law! I can't stand these activist cops who choose not to enforce the laws put in place by the people. [/sarcasm]

Seriously, this is a pretty stupid situation, but even though the poor kid was scared, the cop was there to remind them about the book, not to scare or arrest the girl. It's not like libraries can afford to send out bounty hunters, and apparently the family wasn't getting the notices about the late book(s). File this under "slow news day".

The sad commentary I see here is that the default reaction to being visited by a police officer is one of fear.

Atras wrote:

It's not like libraries can afford to send out bounty hunters, and apparently the family wasn't getting the notices about the late book(s).

This is why libraries place holds on accounts. The next time she comes in, they mention to her that she's missing a book. Problem solved.

Note to local police chief: Don't listen to the library when they ask you to assign a detective to find out who dog-eared the pages of the library copy of The Da Vinci Code.

I just had to dig up the real story behind this.

First, the actual text of the law:

Section 99A. Whoever willfully conceals on his person or among his belongings any library materials or property and removes said library materials or property, if the value of the property stolen exceeds two hundred and fifty dollars, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or by a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than twenty-five thousand dollars, or both; or, if the value of the property stolen does not exceed two hundred and fifty dollars, shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, or both, and ordered to pay the replacement value of such library materials or property, including all reasonable processing costs, as determined by the governing board of said library.

Any person who has properly charged out any library materials or property, and who, upon neglect to return the same within the time required and specified in the by-laws, rules or regulations of the library owning the property, after receiving notice from the librarian or other proper custodian of the property that the same is overdue, shall willfully fail to return the same within thirty days from the date of such notice shall pay a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars and shall pay the replacement value of such library materials or property, including all reasonable processing costs, as determined by said governing board. Each piece of library property shall be considered a separate offense.

Where did this law come from, you might ask?

[quote]First, the law. Back in 1990, Massachusetts adopted a law that imposed a maximum fine of $500 for an overdue book. Non-payment of the fine could result in arrest and imprisonment. The state brought in this law, under Democrat Michael Dukakis, after librarians lobbied for a change. (The previous law, dating from 1883, provided a fine of only $25 for an overdue book.) Communities across the state were collectively losing roughly $1.1 million a year in library materials. The small town of Shrewsbury, with a population of 23,000, was losing $12,000 a year from non-returned books and materials.[/quote]

So rather than being a crazy law, it was actually designed to save the taxpayers of The Bay State millions of dollars. The previous law was a century out of date and didn't provide enough teeth to stop people from essentially stealing taxpayer property.

I couldn't find mention in the article of just how overdue the books were.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I couldn't find mention in the article of just how overdue the books were.

We don't even know what the book was. Maybe it was a book on how to form a pre-school terror cell. This girl could be lucky to get away with her life.

This guy should have been sent.

LilCodger wrote:

The sad commentary I see here is that the default reaction to being visited by a police officer is one of fear.

This.

As someone who aspires to be a community oriented law enforcement officer, this reaction troubles me.

Think about the circumstances in which a police officer would visit you without being called:

YOu've done something wrong

Someone you know has died

Something bad has happened in your area

Calling this ridiculous is an insult to ridiculous things.

OG_slinger wrote:

The small town of Shrewsbury, with a population of 23,000, was losing $12,000 a year from non-returned books and materials.

Seems like a small price to pay to me. I'd rather have a small number of people losing books than have people worried that they'll go to jail for not returning a book. I'd be willing to pay 50 cents extra in taxes a year so we're not arresting people for overdue library materials.

Funkenpants wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

The small town of Shrewsbury, with a population of 23,000, was losing $12,000 a year from non-returned books and materials.

Seems like a small price to pay to me. I'd rather have a small number of people losing books than have people worried that they'll go to jail for not returning a book. I'd be willing to pay 50 cents extra in taxes a year so we're not arresting people for overdue library materials.

And it seems to me that requiring Shannon Benoit to get off her lazy ass and return a book her daughter checked out eight months ago in April is a small price to pay to save every taxpayer that 50 cents.

OG_slinger wrote:

And it seems to me that requiring Shannon Benoit to get off her lazy ass and return a book her daughter checked out eight months ago in April is a small price to pay to save every taxpayer that 50 cents.

Holy sh*t! They loaned a $12,000 book to a five year old? No wonder they have issues! Or your math is off..

OG_slinger wrote:

And it seems to me that requiring Shannon Benoit to get off her lazy ass and return a book her daughter checked out eight months ago in April is a small price to pay to save every taxpayer that 50 cents.

It's not about whether she should return the book. She should. The question is whether it's having an overdue library book should be a criminal offense, with a big fine and the threat of imprisonment.

The point of libraries is to get people into them. They're a public service that is intended to lead to a more educated, informed lower and middle class who don't have their own libraries. I don't want anyone in a position of worrying about incurring a giant fine if they forget to return a book. I'd rather they just borrow the book. If it doesn't come back, smack a hold on the account. The next time they try to borrow, they'll pay to replace the book.

Funkenpants wrote:

I don't want anyone in a position of worrying about incurring a giant fine if they forget to return a book. I'd rather they just borrow the book. If it doesn't come back, smack a hold on the account. The next time they try to borrow, they'll pay to replace the book.

Your plan, while reasonable, is not severe enough for the town of Shrewsbury. I do have to say, Shrewsbury has one hell of a library - they even have video games you can borrow. (I don't live there, but I have friends who do).

Rezzy wrote:

Holy sh*t! They loaned a $12,000 book to a five year old? No wonder they have issues! Or your math is off..

Or someone's a filthy skimmer...

Funkenpants wrote:

It's not about whether she should return the book. She should. The question is whether it's having an overdue library book should be a criminal offense, with a big fine and the threat of imprisonment.

The point of libraries is to get people into them. They're a public service that is intended to lead to a more educated, informed lower and middle class who don't have their own libraries. I don't want anyone in a position of worrying about incurring a giant fine if they forget to return a book. I'd rather they just borrow the book. If it doesn't come back, smack a hold on the account. The next time they try to borrow, they'll pay to replace the book.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that libraries are a wonderful public service, but they can't exist if they're constantly having to repurchase materials that some lazy, thoughtless idiot decides to permanently "borrow". Practically every public library has seen budget cutbacks and has had to reduce the services they provide, their operating hours, or has simply shut their doors altogether. If libraries were flush with cash I could see letting things like this slide, but since they aren't I'd much rather see thousands of taxpayer dollars spent keeping a library open longer or on the weekends than restocking materials that people have effectively stolen. Letting it slide just hurts everyone who relies on the library.

Libraries don't immediately charge big fines. They charge between five and twenty five cents a day for overdue books. That's it. It's only when you've kept that book out for months and months and months that you'll be facing a hefty fine. But at that point you deserve it because you've kept every other taxpayer who wanted to read that book throughout those months from reading that book or, worse, forced the library to spend some of it's limited budget to replace something it already bought.

How about a little personal responsibility? You borrowed a book and either through forgetfulness, laziness, or a combination of both, you failed to return it. Be a mensch and pay the fine and help the library continue to serve the community rather than freak out that you got caught red-handed being a forgetful, lazy jerk.

OG_slinger wrote:
Rezzy wrote:

Holy sh*t! They loaned a $12,000 book to a five year old? No wonder they have issues! Or your math is off..

Or someone's a filthy skimmer...

Funkenpants wrote:

It's not about whether she should return the book. She should. The question is whether it's having an overdue library book should be a criminal offense, with a big fine and the threat of imprisonment.

The point of libraries is to get people into them. They're a public service that is intended to lead to a more educated, informed lower and middle class who don't have their own libraries. I don't want anyone in a position of worrying about incurring a giant fine if they forget to return a book. I'd rather they just borrow the book. If it doesn't come back, smack a hold on the account. The next time they try to borrow, they'll pay to replace the book.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that libraries are a wonderful public service, but they can't exist if they're constantly having to repurchase materials that some lazy, thoughtless idiot decides to permanently "borrow". Practically every public library has seen budget cutbacks and has had to reduce the services they provide, their operating hours, or has simply shut their doors altogether. If libraries were flush with cash I could see letting things like this slide, but since they aren't I'd much rather see thousands of taxpayer dollars spent keeping a library open longer or on the weekends than restocking materials that people have effectively stolen. Letting it slide just hurts everyone who relies on the library.

Libraries don't immediately charge big fines. They charge between five and twenty five cents a day for overdue books. That's it. It's only when you've kept that book out for months and months and months that you'll be facing a hefty fine. But at that point you deserve it because you've kept every other taxpayer who wanted to read that book throughout those months from reading that book or, worse, forced the library to spend some of it's limited budget to replace something it already bought.

How about a little personal responsibility? You borrowed a book and either through forgetfulness, laziness, or a combination of both, you failed to return it. Be a mensch and pay the fine and help the library continue to serve the community rather than freak out that you got caught red-handed being a forgetful, lazy jerk.

I'm not a public librarian, but I did just get my masters in Library Science. If it's not a rare, irreplaceable book, a pretty reasonable amount of lossage is expected and built into budgets.

I think parks are a wonderful public service as well and think that we should be encouraging people to use them as a proper public resource. That said, I think we should do what we can to prevent folks from chopping down evergreen trees in parks to put in their living rooms during the month of December.

WiredAsylum wrote:

Hailey’s mom argues that sending a cop to their house was like pounding a ten penny nail with a sledge hammer.

Wait, was Hailey's mom around with the 1883 law was passed? "ten penny nail"? Do people in Charlton still talk like this?

This article seems to have much more detailed & accurate info:

http://telegram.com/article/20120104...

The little girl's book was 2 years overdue, but what they really wanted back was dad's audiobook, 3 years overdue.

With that in mind, I can't see how the library or police did anything wrong. These people are simply bad parents, since they didn't return their daughter's library book and they haven't seemed to explain to their daughter why the cop was there.

OG_slinger wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree with you that libraries are a wonderful public service, but they can't exist if they're constantly having to repurchase materials that some lazy, thoughtless idiot decides to permanently "borrow".

And yet all the local libraries in my area manage to exist without making an overdue book a criminal matter.

City of Charlton, collection agency. Collection agency, City of Charlton. So glad you two have finally met.

At least get the library cop from Seinfeld. Then it would all be funny.

IMAGE(http://www.thelibrarynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Seinfeld-The-Library-Cop.jpg)

I hate it when police arrest shoplifters. It's just overkill. Stores should expect a little shoplifting and have it built into their budgets. Getting police involved in matters like that are just ridiculous. Who cares if some kid is pocketing a few candybars at the local convenience store? That store is there to cater to the public!

(I think I mean that as sarcasm. I'm tired, it's Friday and I'd rather be playing SWTOR so who really knows.)