MA doesn't F around with Library fines

Maybe we should just do away with laws, police officers, courts etc. They're expensive to maintain, they have all kinds of rules they expect people to follow, they're downright intolerant.

Plus, they're really an inconvenience to the rest of us who want to do whatever we want.

Bear wrote:

Maybe we should just do away with laws, police officers, courts etc. They're expensive to maintain, they have all kinds of rules they expect people to follow, they're downright intolerant.

Plus, they're really an inconvenience to the rest of us who want to do whatever we want.

Mr. Paul, shouldn't you be campaigning in New Hampshire right now?

CheezePavilion wrote:
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?

Uh.... that's the measurement for a size of nail commonly used in the US. It's not her fault that's what they're called. Usually called out with a small d after the number.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nail_(fastener)#United_States_penny_sizes

momgamer wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
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?

Uh.... that's the measurement for a size of nail commonly used in the US. It's not her fault that's what they're called. Usually called out with a small d after the number.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nail_(fastener)#United_States_penny_sizes

Weird. We always call them by the length.

Kehama wrote:

I hate it when police arrest shoplifters. It's just overkill. Stores should expect a little shoplifting and have it built into their budgets.

We could go through all the ways in which a library is not like a store, and in which shoplifting is different than failing to return something borrowed, but do we really have to go through that exercise?

If you want to make a comparison to a private sector operation, the better comparison would be private libraries like redbox or Netflix. If you don't return something to them, what do they do? What do you think the customer reaction would be if Netflix or Redbox announced a $500 charge for failure to return a $20 DVD?

CheezePavilion wrote:
momgamer wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
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?

Uh.... that's the measurement for a size of nail commonly used in the US. It's not her fault that's what they're called. Usually called out with a small d after the number.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nail_(fastener)#United_States_penny_sizes

Weird. We always call them by the length.

You refuse to go metric, then wonder why your country is thrown into chaos.

I think we're missing the real point: Publicly-funded buildings exist that let people borrow books for free. That is your money, taken at gunpoint, that goes into a socialist book collective to which everyone has access, even Negroes.

Funkenpants wrote:

If you want to make a comparison to a private sector operation, the better comparison would be private libraries like redbox or Netflix. If you don't return something to them, what do they do? What do you think the customer reaction would be if Netflix or Redbox announced a $500 charge for failure to return a $20 DVD?

Good point. Maybe libraries should start operating like Redbox and require people to put credit cards on file before they can borrow a book and if the books are out past a certain point they just charge the cards for the cost of the books. Of course that would prove a barrier to serving the truly poor which is what libraries were primarily set up to do.

Trust me, I realize a retail store is different than a library but there has to be some sort of consequence that borrowers face if they don't return these books because, unfortunately, we can't count on the honor system when lending out media. Unless of course we decide to just subsidize people taking whatever they like through taxpayer funds. And judging from the number of libraries closing I'd say that's not what municipalities are choosing to do.

I don't know if such a thing exists in the US, but back in Croatia every year we would have something like a "Library week" during which you could return an overdue book without paying any library fees. Of course, I have no idea how that would work on a larger scale since most of our libraries were pretty small compared to American ones.

Funkenpants wrote:

If you want to make a comparison to a private sector operation, the better comparison would be private libraries like redbox or Netflix. If you don't return something to them, what do they do? What do you think the customer reaction would be if Netflix or Redbox announced a $500 charge for failure to return a $20 DVD?

The more apt comparison would be what Blockbuster does. They really don't care if you return the movie or not because they're charging you $3.99 a day in late fees and once a certain period of time goes by without you responding they simply charge your credit card for all the late fees *and* to replace the DVD. No fuss, no muss.

Now compare that with libraries who charge at most 25 cents a day in late fees and only get the police involved when you haven't responded for nearly two years because they really have no other way to reclaim the public property that you've effectively stolen.

As Kehama pointed out it would require every library card holder to link said card to a credit or debit card to avoid this situation, which is counter to the whole idea of a public library.

Slacker1913 wrote:

I don't know if such a thing exists in the US, but back in Croatia every year we would have something like a "Library week" during which you could return an overdue book without paying any library fees. Of course, I have no idea how that would work on a larger scale since most of our libraries were pretty small compared to American ones.

A lot of school and university libraries do that too. We have an "amnesty" at the end of term, the point being just to get the material back. Fines are a disincentive for the borrower, not a significant revenue generator for the library. We'd rather than just get the books and DVDs back on the shelves, than roll around in mountains of quarters.

Gravey wrote:
Slacker1913 wrote:

I don't know if such a thing exists in the US, but back in Croatia every year we would have something like a "Library week" during which you could return an overdue book without paying any library fees. Of course, I have no idea how that would work on a larger scale since most of our libraries were pretty small compared to American ones.

A lot of school and university libraries do that too. We have an "amnesty" at the end of term, the point being just to get the material back. Fines are a disincentive for the borrower, not a significant revenue generator for the library. We'd rather than just get the books and DVDs back on the shelves, than roll around in mountains of quarters.

Fines are a disincentive to the borrower? How about the university doesn't graduate those people or advance them to the next grade until they return the materials and pay a much more massive fine (call it an asshole tax). Seriously. Are people that lazy and inconsiderate that they can't be bothered to walk across campus to return something that isn't theirs to begin with?

All amnesties do is encourage bad behavior. Just look at corporations. They petitioned Congress to allow them to bring home billions and billions of dollars in offshore profits in 2005 if they only paid 5% tax instead of their normal 35% tax. They pinky sweared they'd use all that extra money to invest in R&D and create new jobs, but what they actually did was hand it out in bonuses and stock dividends. And now just seven years later they're begging Congress to let them do it all over again.

The proper response should have be Congress telling corporations that there'd a reverse auction. Either they brought all the profit home now and paid the 35% tax like a good little company or have the rate go up 1% a day until they got nothing or could never touch that money again. That would stimulate the proper behavior.

OG_slinger wrote:

Fines are a disincentive to the borrower?

They're a disincentive to the borrower [em]holding the item out past its due date[/em]. His point was that the library isn't interested in the fines as a money-making thing, they're just there to discourage people from keeping books overdue. (They're a disincentive instead of an incentive because you're penalized for returning things late, rather than rewarded for returning things early.) The library is interested in the amnesty because its real goal is to get those materials back. (And don't forget that a university library has a different lending pattern from a public library. The books that many people need/want, the students will be buying for themselves. A large breadth of rarer materials is what you want to preserve--and those are both less likely to result in "I want this, but somebody has it out!" happening as often as in the public setting, and more likely to result in "we'd like to replace this, but can't find a copy any more" when an item is kept.)

OG_slinger wrote:

How about the university doesn't graduate those people or advance them to the next grade until they return the materials and pay a much more massive fine (call it an asshole tax). Seriously. Are people that lazy and inconsiderate that they can't be bothered to walk across campus to return something that isn't theirs to begin with?

People have been known to lose things completely by accident. It's reasonable to make those people pay a fine of some sort, including the costs of replacing the work. It's not reasonable to make it a massive asshole tax. (Of course, people who lose things ought to report that in a timely manner.)

Requiring students to get in touch with the library when they have long overdue items before signing up for classes or graduating seems reasonable, though. And pretty much equivalent to "Hi, I'm an agent of the state, and I dropped by to ask that you get in touch with the library about those materials you've been sitting on for two years." Totally reasonable.

OG_slinger wrote:

Fines are a disincentive to the borrower? How about the university doesn't graduate those people or advance them to the next grade until they return the materials and pay a much more massive fine (call it an asshole tax). Seriously.

Just to elaborate, and in addition to what Hypatian said, our fines reach a limit (because we're not interested in wringing our students) but then their borrowing privileges are suspended. If the fines are high enough, like from replacement costs for lost items, they're atomically blocked from registering or graduating until they can pay. So there are those measures for egregious borrowers.

OG_slinger wrote:

Are people that lazy and inconsiderate that they can't be bothered to walk across campus to return something that isn't theirs to begin with?

Yes. We call them "faculty".

Hypatian wrote:

They're a disincentive to the borrower [em]holding the item out past its due date[/em]. His point was that the library isn't interested in the fines as a money-making thing, they're just there to discourage people from keeping books overdue. (They're a disincentive instead of an incentive because you're penalized for returning things late, rather than rewarded for returning things early.) The library is interested in the amnesty because its real goal is to get those materials back.

Considering the father of the family kept an audio book for two and a half years and his daughter kept books for eight months past the three weeks things are normally loaned our for those fines aren't high enough to discourage people keeping materials past their due date. The Charlton Public Library charges a mere 10 cents a day for overdue materials. That's why it took so long for the family to rack up $130 in fines. If the Charlton Public Library was Blockbuster the great grandchildren of the Benoit family would still be indebted to the company.

Heck, make a sliding scale for the fines. If you're a couple days or a week late you get the 10 cents a day rate. Over a week and it goes of up a bit. Past a month overdue and the fines go up exponentially. At that point you've pretty much proven that you're an jerk who doesn't care about other people's property.

Hypatian wrote:

People have been known to lose things completely by accident. It's reasonable to make those people pay a fine of some sort, including the costs of replacing the work. It's not reasonable to make it a massive asshole tax. (Of course, people who lose things ought to report that in a timely manner.)

I'm all for being reasonable and understand accidents happen. However, two and a half years isn't reasonable. It's being an asshole and that behavior shouldn't be encouraged.

Right. And that's why I pointed out that a university environment is different. In a community library, there's a more pressing need for popular materials to be returned in a timely manner, and there's typically no way to punish extreme bad actors except to revoke their borrowing privileges. (Absent a law like the one in discussion here.) It doesn't help, either, that the sort of person who keeps a book out for six months or more is more likely to be the infrequent visitor than the frequent one, and they have the least to lose by having their borrowing privileges revoked.

In short: I think an amnesty makes perfect sense in the university library environment, but not in the community library environment. And I'm totally on board with a law intended to provide a penalty to people who borrow-and-forget. (I am extremely skeptical that the family in question never received their overdue notices. I suspect they wouldn't have been able to "not get" a summons to court so easily, and that when they have time to think about it they'll be happy (if a bit embarrassed) that it was a friendly reminder from the local constabulary they received and [em]not[/em] in fact a summons to court.)

I really don't see what the huge deal is here. The library attempted to contact the borrower of expensive materials several times using the mail and/or phone calls. The borrower didn't respond. Then the library referred this issue to the proper authorities for the adjudication of such issues (law enforcement).

By all accounts, law enforcement was entirely courteous and professional and the matter was resolved in a manner satisfactory to all parties. The borrower's wife was a little miffed that the cops were involved, but she should have been pissed at her husband for being an inconsiderate ass.

There was never any use of force or threats. The policeman wasn't going to haul anyone off in cuffs that day. He was just there to tell the folks to do what they needed to do or else they were likely to face a court summons in the near future. Cops, btw, have that discretion and generally don't haul folks off in cuffs unless they're being asshats, are a danger to others/themselves, or are a possible flight risk.

This really seems like a lot of folks getting needlessly worked up because a kid got scared and started crying.

Tanglebones wrote:

If it's not a rare, irreplaceable book, a pretty reasonable amount of lossage is expected and built into budgets.

I'm more surprised that rare and irreplaceable books would be allowed to be checked out of the library at all.

Strewth wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

If it's not a rare, irreplaceable book, a pretty reasonable amount of lossage is expected and built into budgets.

I'm more surprised that rare and irreplaceable books would be allowed to be checked out of the library at all.

They're not - but they're still stolen on occasion.

Paleocon wrote:

I really don't see what the huge deal is here. The library attempted to contact the borrower of expensive materials several times using the mail and/or phone calls. The borrower didn't respond. Then the library referred this issue to the proper authorities for the adjudication of such issues (law enforcement).

By all accounts, law enforcement was entirely courteous and professional and the matter was resolved in a manner satisfactory to all parties. The borrower's wife was a little miffed that the cops were involved, but she should have been pissed at her husband for being an inconsiderate ass.

There was never any use of force or threats. The policeman wasn't going to haul anyone off in cuffs that day. He was just there to tell the folks to do what they needed to do or else they were likely to face a court summons in the near future. Cops, btw, have that discretion and generally don't haul folks off in cuffs unless they're being asshats, are a danger to others/themselves, or are a possible flight risk.

This really seems like a lot of folks getting needlessly worked up because a kid got scared and started crying.

If this happened in a vacuum, I could see it, and I'd agree with you completely.

However, in very recent memory, we've had a hilariously sad number of police being power-hungry assholes, government suppression of free speech, and problematic laws passed. In this environment, it's fair for things to be taken entirely more skeptically. More and more, the positive aspects of community police are forgotten or outright abandoned, and public reactions are moving accordingly.

Personally, I'd not have a problem with it, since the police here are reasonable and fair, by and large. So I don't, say, get a panic attack when I see a cop walking up to my door, since odds are he's just gonna warn me that my tire is flat or something.

Now, in locations where the cops are... less so, any interaction tends towards painful, even if the specific officer is polite and courteous... since most aren't.

So, in this specific case, I can't see anything wrong, they had acted like they hadn't gotten any notifications, so someone was swinging by to tell them personally. No harm, no foul. But lately, that's been the exception, rather than the rule.

Kannon wrote:

Now, in locations where the cops are... less so, any interaction tends towards painful, even if the specific officer is polite and courteous... since most aren't.

So, in this specific case, I can't see anything wrong, they had acted like they hadn't gotten any notifications, so someone was swinging by to tell them personally. No harm, no foul. But lately, that's been the exception, rather than the rule.

I'd argue that this is the way it happens the vast majority of the time. The police show up, do their jobs and go away.

The difference is, it isn't newsworthy because it doesn't support the "police state" discussion. We don't hear about the hundreds of thousands of normal police interactions that happen every day because there's no news. We hear about the instances where bad cops do stupid things. They get exposed, they're dealt with and life goes on.

Kannon wrote:

If this happened in a vacuum, I could see it, and I'd agree with you completely.

However, in very recent memory, we've had a hilariously sad number of police being power-hungry assholes, government suppression of free speech, and problematic laws passed. In this environment, it's fair for things to be taken entirely more skeptically. More and more, the positive aspects of community police are forgotten or outright abandoned, and public reactions are moving accordingly.

Personally, I'd not have a problem with it, since the police here are reasonable and fair, by and large. So I don't, say, get a panic attack when I see a cop walking up to my door, since odds are he's just gonna warn me that my tire is flat or something.

Now, in locations where the cops are... less so, any interaction tends towards painful, even if the specific officer is polite and courteous... since most aren't.

So, in this specific case, I can't see anything wrong, they had acted like they hadn't gotten any notifications, so someone was swinging by to tell them personally. No harm, no foul. But lately, that's been the exception, rather than the rule.

Things will never get better if we assume all cops are oppressive assholes though. The cop went there to tell the parents to return a $100 audiobook that had been checked out for a full 3 years by dad. The fact that a 5 year old kid was crying was just something an attention-grabbing mom tried to exploit to the media.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Kannon wrote:

If this happened in a vacuum, I could see it, and I'd agree with you completely.

However, in very recent memory, we've had a hilariously sad number of police being power-hungry assholes, government suppression of free speech, and problematic laws passed. In this environment, it's fair for things to be taken entirely more skeptically. More and more, the positive aspects of community police are forgotten or outright abandoned, and public reactions are moving accordingly.

Personally, I'd not have a problem with it, since the police here are reasonable and fair, by and large. So I don't, say, get a panic attack when I see a cop walking up to my door, since odds are he's just gonna warn me that my tire is flat or something.

Now, in locations where the cops are... less so, any interaction tends towards painful, even if the specific officer is polite and courteous... since most aren't.

So, in this specific case, I can't see anything wrong, they had acted like they hadn't gotten any notifications, so someone was swinging by to tell them personally. No harm, no foul. But lately, that's been the exception, rather than the rule.

Things will never get better if we assume all cops are oppressive assholes though. The cop went there to tell the parents to return a $100 audiobook that had been checked out for a full 3 years by dad. The fact that a 5 year old kid was crying was just something an attention-grabbing mom tried to exploit to the media.

Exactly. Invoking police state, Rodney King crap in this case is pretty silly all around. Save the outrage for when it actually matters.

Paleocon wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Kannon wrote:

If this happened in a vacuum, I could see it, and I'd agree with you completely.

However, in very recent memory, we've had a hilariously sad number of police being power-hungry assholes, government suppression of free speech, and problematic laws passed. In this environment, it's fair for things to be taken entirely more skeptically. More and more, the positive aspects of community police are forgotten or outright abandoned, and public reactions are moving accordingly.

Personally, I'd not have a problem with it, since the police here are reasonable and fair, by and large. So I don't, say, get a panic attack when I see a cop walking up to my door, since odds are he's just gonna warn me that my tire is flat or something.

Now, in locations where the cops are... less so, any interaction tends towards painful, even if the specific officer is polite and courteous... since most aren't.

So, in this specific case, I can't see anything wrong, they had acted like they hadn't gotten any notifications, so someone was swinging by to tell them personally. No harm, no foul. But lately, that's been the exception, rather than the rule.

Things will never get better if we assume all cops are oppressive assholes though. The cop went there to tell the parents to return a $100 audiobook that had been checked out for a full 3 years by dad. The fact that a 5 year old kid was crying was just something an attention-grabbing mom tried to exploit to the media.

Exactly. Invoking police state, Rodney King crap in this case is pretty silly all around. Save the outrage for when it actually matters.

I agree, just pointing out that it's reasonable to be a little twitchy. We are, afterall, human.

The part that matters is that the kid cried and that the media's attention got piqued. This can only happen in a situation where the default reaction to a police officer is one of fear rather than friendliness. Used to be, when you're in trouble, you go to the cops for help. Now, the kids are apparently learning that you only get approached when you're in trouble, and the cops are coming to get you.

Civilians and police forces are being placed as adversarial forces, and this is not good for anyone - least of all, the cops themselves.

As evil as the library and police clearly are, at one point one must ask, why didn't she just return the severely overdue library books? If a book is three years overdue, at what point is it OK to just call that "theft?"

I don't think it's all that relevant that the kid cried. It's not like it takes a lot to make a 5 year old girl cry. Trust me.

LobsterMobster wrote:

As evil as the library and police clearly are, at one point one must ask, why didn't she just return the severely overdue library books?

It was either lost, and impossible to return, or forgotten, and the library was unable to get in touch with them.

LobsterMobster wrote:

As evil as the library and police clearly are, at one point one must ask, why didn't she just return the severely overdue library books? If a book is three years overdue, at what point is it OK to just call that "theft?"

I don't think it's all that relevant that the kid cried. It's not like it takes a lot to make a 5 year old girl cry. Trust me.

Exactly.

If a store sends a police officer to deal with a shoplifter and she cries, is that evidence that the public has lost faith in law enforcement?

Atras wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

As evil as the library and police clearly are, at one point one must ask, why didn't she just return the severely overdue library books?

It was either lost, and impossible to return, or forgotten, and the library was unable to get in touch with them.

At my local library, if you can't return a book for whatever reason you're responsible for the cost to replace it. Usually within 3 years.

Paleocon wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

As evil as the library and police clearly are, at one point one must ask, why didn't she just return the severely overdue library books? If a book is three years overdue, at what point is it OK to just call that "theft?"

I don't think it's all that relevant that the kid cried. It's not like it takes a lot to make a 5 year old girl cry. Trust me.

Exactly.

If a store sends a police officer to deal with a shoplifter and she cries, is that evidence that the public has lost faith in law enforcement?

If a mainstream media outlet thinks that there's a story in there to be played from the shoplifter's perspective, then it is certainly highly suggestive that the police have lost the confidence of the community at large.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Atras wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

As evil as the library and police clearly are, at one point one must ask, why didn't she just return the severely overdue library books?

It was either lost, and impossible to return, or forgotten, and the library was unable to get in touch with them.

At my local library, if you can't return a book for whatever reason you're responsible for the cost to replace it. Usually within 3 years.

At mine, you don't get to borrow anything if you have more than $10 in outstanding fines and are responsible for replacing all lost or damaged materials. I imagine they would send a county court summons if someone borrowed over $100 in materials and failed to return them. Those would either be delivered in the mail or sent out via county sheriff.