« Assorted links | Main | Go Mason! »
Library fines, part II
A US woman has been arrested and handcuffed for failing to pay fines for two overdue library books.
Heidi Dalibor, of Grafton, Wisconsin, is the first to admit that she ignored calls and letters from her local library.
She also admits that she ignored a notice to appear in municipal court or pay the fine, reports the News Graphic.
But the last thing she expected was a knock on her door by Grafton police.
Here is more. Here is my previous post on library fines. By the way, she paid the fine and kept the books.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 22, 2008 at 11:47 AM in Books | Permalink
Comments
It wouldn't have helped in this situation, but I think that for non-waitlisted books, a library should automatically forgive the first (say) week of a fine, but only if the book is brought back within that week. If the book book is brought back 8 days after the due date, the full 8-day fine would be due. This would save the library from having to tediously process small fines and would encourage the patron to get the book back in by a certain date.
Posted by: Craig at Aug 22, 2008 12:13:43 PM
@Craig: But the long-term outcome would be that everybody brings back their books at least one week too late. Effectively you've raised the first day fine eightfold. :-)
Posted by: JSK at Aug 22, 2008 1:05:33 PM
Almost 50 years ago, at the request of a local public library, I obtained an arrest warrant for a person who had refused to return books. Alas, he was never found.
Posted by: mckasklep at Aug 22, 2008 1:21:28 PM
Of course, this is a totally retarded way of solving the library book problem. All a library would have to do is require a deposit greater than the value of the books loaned.
But I guess any excuse for a police state with some people.
I wonder what the reaction would be if someone was arrested for not returning their Blockbuster video - The fact that people are much more tolerant of disproportional police aggression with government services vs. private services is a very good argument against the government doing too much.
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Aug 22, 2008 1:40:39 PM
The first line is misleading - the woman was arrested for failing to appear in court, not for failing to pay the fine.
Posted by: Dan Tarrant at Aug 22, 2008 1:42:08 PM
The first line is misleading - the woman was arrested for failing to appear in court, not for failing to pay the fine.
Posted by: Dan Tarrant at Aug 22, 2008 1:43:06 PM
Does everyone remember href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_(Seinfeld)">the Seinfeld episode about this?
Posted by: Scott at Aug 22, 2008 2:01:32 PM
Does everyone remember the Seinfeld episode about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_(Seinfeld)
Posted by: Scott at Aug 22, 2008 2:03:09 PM
"Alas, he was never found."
Is there a statute of limitations on the books, or if he's found will they throw the book at him?
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 22, 2008 2:13:00 PM
Yup, it's bagged for "failure to appear" not ponying up the fine.
The courts frown on that sort of thing. I once forgot (really) to pay the license fee for my dog in Fairfield, Ct. Missed the notice to appear (really). And was, when stopped for coasting through a stop sign, was bagged for "Failure to appear."
It'll get you every time.
Posted by: vanderleun at Aug 22, 2008 2:24:51 PM
In many places, if one doesn't pay a library fine after a certain point a warrant will be issued. Usually this is a misdemeanor warrant and can only be acted on if the person is stopped for some other reason (a traffic stop, usually) and is what's known as a "day-service only" meaning it can only be acted on during day-light hours unless one is stopped for some other reason (the idea is that the police shouldn't go burst in to your home for something little.) It's modestly effective and not too unreasonable if there is a real problem w/ people not returning library books or not paying the fines. (For most libraries as well, once the fine reaches the replacement value of the book, you can keep the book.)
Posted by: matt at Aug 22, 2008 3:05:43 PM
"the woman was arrested for failing to appear in court, not for failing to pay the fine"
"when stopped for coasting through a stop sign"
You mean we don't send the SWAT team to the house when the ink on the warrant is still wet? Scandalous.
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 22, 2008 3:09:07 PM
Rex,
According to The Smoking Gun report, this woman actually failed to return the books, in addition to failing to pay the fine. While, in the absence of all of the facts, I might agree with you that the response was excessive, borrowing something and not returning it is a type of theft. Besides, as others have pointed out, she had failed to appear in court. So what really happened here?
1. Patron takes property from library and fails to return it at the agreed time.
2. Library makes repeated attempts to retrieve the property or be compensated for its value by contacting the patron.
3. After #2 fails, library asks the courts to intervene.
4. Patron brushes off the court.
5. Police arrest patron. There are no indications that they are abusive (unless you reckon the use of handcuffs at all as abusive), and they release her when she has paid the fines and replacement charges.
This does not seem like an unreasonable use of police power. They are protecting the library's property rights. I might disagree that it is necessary to get the courts and/or police involved in the theft of two lousy paperbacks, but it's not like she didn't have plenty of opportunity to fix the problem before it got to this point.
As for failing to return things to the video store, I take the same position, although I think most of them are unlikely to actually press charges unless the theft is really substantial.
Posted by: jonvw at Aug 22, 2008 3:48:24 PM
I'm just thinking out loud here. Why not dye packs?
Late, three days, BAM! Big mess. Unreadable. Blue Shih Tzu. HUGE incentive. Don't have to worry about all the book thieves who meticulously stop at stop signs or don't fly.
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 22, 2008 4:02:32 PM
I agree with other posters that arrest seems a little excessive for a late library book, but it's hardly a secret that the court system doesn't have a sense of humor about people who ignore a summons, so I really don't have any sympathy for Heidi.
For those who haven't seen it, you really should rent or borrow somebody's copy of the Seinfeld episode. The lecture in Jerry's apartment from Philip Baker Hall (as Lt Bookman, library cop and Joe Friday parody) is one of the funniest things I've ever seen on TV.
Posted by: J at Aug 22, 2008 7:40:40 PM
If someone shoplifted these two books from a bookstore, they would face arrest and prosecution. How is this different? Her actions make it clear this was not procrastination or absentmindedness.
Posted by: at Aug 22, 2008 11:15:51 PM
jonvw:
It isn't a violation of property rights. She didn't steal the books from the library. She simply broke an agreement about how soon she should return the books.
What is a violation of property rights is the state stealing money from people at gunpoint in order to pay cops, court costs, jail costs, etc., for a problem that can be solved easily using 100% non-coercive means. (simply require a deposit for an amount greater than the value of books you have out any any one time).
Video stores, book clubs, university libraries, even many public libraries etc., have solved this problem, without wasting the resources of the police or the courts. We don't have to speculate about how to solve the problem, the problem has already been solved. Many institution, businesses, and organizations, public and private, use the solution every single day, and it works! If some public libraries can't be bothered, then why should the courts and the police (and ultimately the taxpayer) be bothered?
What next, are the police going to taser or beat jaywalkers? Oh yeah, I forgot, that is already all too common!
http://hnn.us/articles/33409.html#Day3
http://www.edmonton-sun.ca/News/Edmonton/2007/06/08/4246467.html
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Aug 22, 2008 11:56:47 PM
If someone shoplifted these two books from a bookstore, they would face arrest and prosecution. How is this different?
How is it different? Well, how about the fact that SHE DIDN'T SHOPLIFT THESE TWO BOOKS!!!!
What she did was the equivalent of not returning her movies on time to Blockbuster.
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Aug 23, 2008 12:04:32 AM
$45 for 15 days. Three videotapes and a book, though they do not charge for books here. There is no excuse, since here you are allowed to extend via telephone. Nevertheless the librarian asked me what I intended to do about it. I said " I hope to plead my way out of it, of course." Unfortunately, she said, she wasn't allowed to erase fines, but she would remove $25 dollars from it, hurray!
Life in a small town has myriad benefits.
Posted by: DPirate at Aug 23, 2008 8:22:53 AM
Requiring a deposit equal to the value of the books must sound just wonderful since so many posters think it's a SWELL idea. There are, however, problems with that approach. First, it's a PUBLIC library. Are we unclear on the concept of PUBLIC? These days, explaining the concept of public property and public institutions to my reactionary family members makes me feel like some kind of communist throwback, BUT I don't see why it should be such a strain for librarians. IF you're a librarian, you are perhaps aware that many of your clients -- the ones, in fact, you WANT to be checking out and reading LOTS of books, are children. They don't HAVE the kind of money you'd need to pay a replacement-cost deposit for a ten-book limit. And, in a lot of cases, their parents don't, either.
Blockbuster is not the ideal model, AND taking Blockbuster as your model is not a good excuse for thinking that is both bad and punitively stupid, to say nothing of being in violation of the public trust. The woman in Grafton got arrested because she ignored a summons in a small town where he cops don't have a lot of better things to do than arrest someone for library fines. Laughs all around.
The real-world solution is this: after a good-faith effort to get the books back, you turn the account over to a collection agency. The schmo pays up because otherwise his/her credit rating gets lunched and the costs for this are more than you'd believe. That takes care of the people who care about their credit ratings. The others, who fly below that level, you just have to serve and suffer with as a cost of public service.
Posted by: tim porges at Aug 23, 2008 10:01:13 AM
...simply require a deposit for an amount greater than the value of books you have out any any one time
How brilliant and simple. I hope that Hertz and Avis implement this idea the next time you want to rent a car.
More to the point, what gives you the right to penalize the young or poor but honest library users by tying up what could be a significant fraction of their weekly budget? Just to spare this goofy grifter the horror of having to flash a daft smirk for her mugshot (check out the link from The Smoking Gun).
If you borrow something and outright refuse to return it, at some point it becomes theft. That line had already been crossed well before she deliberately ignored the court summons. As others have already pointed out, that crowning stupidity was the real reason for her arrest.
She got what she deserved, full stop. If you want to complain about the petty intrusiveness of government, surely you can find some worthier cause to defend than this preposterous person.
Posted by: at Aug 23, 2008 11:43:56 AM
First, it's a PUBLIC library. Are we unclear on the concept of PUBLIC?
Yes, and plenty of public institutions require deposits, charge user fees, etc.
You if want to camp in a national park, for example, you need to pay a user fee. Is a national park not a public institution?
IF you're a librarian, you are perhaps aware that many of your clients -- the ones, in fact, you WANT to be checking out and reading LOTS of books, are children. They don't HAVE the kind of money you'd need to pay a replacement-cost deposit for a ten-book limit. And, in a lot of cases, their parents don't, either.
You are ignoring the choice - The choice is between requiring deposits, and throwing people in jail. If requiring a modest deposit is harmful to children and/or poor people, then certainly throwing those children or poor people into jail is more harmful! How is it going to effect those children to be handcuffed, taken away from their families, locked in a cage, etc? Or to see it happen to their parents?
If a deposit is such a big hardship to children or poor people, then lend them books on the honor system. But that is not what you are suggesting - you are suggesting subjecting those children and poor people to the constant threat of violence and imprisonment. That is just sick, and it is a sick society we live in where people like you think that throwing children or their parents in jail is somehow a kinder or more compassionate act than requiring a deposit.
How brilliant and simple. I hope that Hertz and Avis implement this idea the next time you want to rent a car.Hertz and Avis do that in the abstract. Your fees pay, in part, for insurance on the car, which acts the same as a deposit from the standpoint of Avis and Hertz.
More to the point, what gives you the right to penalize the young or poor but honest library users by tying up what could be a significant fraction of their weekly budget?What gives you the right to take those young, poor, library users, and send them off to jail? If you care so much about those young, poor, library users, then lend them books on the honor system.
If you borrow something and outright refuse to return it, at some point it becomes theft.No, it is not. The lender accepts a reasonable amount of risk. If I lend my next door neighbor a paperback, and he doesn't return it, do you really think the courts or the police would do anything? Of course not. Nor would you think it reasonable that they would. You only think it reasonable with the public library, because as a state institution you feel reverence to its authority.Posted by: Rex Rhino at Aug 24, 2008 2:24:13 AM
Rex Rhino:
Next time you hand your car keys over to a valet parking attendent and your car isn't there when you get back, I suppose the answer you expect from the police and your insurance company is, "I'm sorry, there's nothing we can do. The attendent didn't steal your car. `She simply broke an agreement about how soon she should return the [car].'"
That way, you wouldn't be "stealing" resources from honest taxpayers in trying to recover your vehicle. And it's your bad you didn't demand a $15,000 deposit from the attendent before handing over the keys.
As far as Blockbuster is concerned, I believe you have to have a valid credit card when you sign up for membership and if you are late beyond a certain number of days, they charge your card for the retail price (plus maybe a "restocking fee" or "service fee") of the video. Nice solution but not everyone has a credit card.
Posted by: Ricardo at Aug 25, 2008 12:33:57 AM
New homeowners are most concerned about leaks, someone to 抓漏grasp Henmomianzai leakage, a good new home, can not find a good 清潔公司cleaning company to clean up clean. That day I had bought a 機票ticket in Paris, a house was found leaking in the morning, quickly hit a 租車taxi to find out who repair, really bad
Posted by: 環保袋 at Dec 9, 2008 2:42:35 AM
If you have to buy FFXI Gil, please come to our company.
Posted by: buy FFXI Gil at Jan 2, 2009 12:36:52 AM
Next »Post a comment
