If it had been sufficient discouragement the book would have been returned three years earlier.
Honestly, I’m surprised by the overwhelming support for arresting library deadbeats exhibited in this thread. The reason this is even national news is because it’s unusual and a bit outrageous.
I find it hilarious that the day he was arrested, after he got out of jail, he returned the book. Funny how going to jail can motivate somebody.
Theft is theft. If this had been an honest mistake, it wouldn’t have taken three years of nagging AND legal action to get him to return goods rightfully belonging to the taxpayers in his city/county. This was willful “hey, I’m just gonna keep what someone else bought and lent to me without compensating them for loss of property, I don’t care who else might need that book”.
We’re not supporting the particular straw man you’re attacking. Speaking for myself and I think many of the others in this thread, we’re not arguing for arresting library deadbeats as a general policy; we’re saying that, in this particular set of circumstances, arresting this particular library deadbeat was not unreasonable or out of proportion.
While the news story didn’t provide any actual figures, it does address the reason for the ordinance. The city’s municipal judge is quoted as saying “The reason they passed it [the ordinance] was that they were spending a tremendous amount of money replacing these materials that people just didn’t return.”
But even if nothing had ever been stolen from this library before, I don’t think it takes a bunch of jerks to decide that theft is a crime best handled by the police. Mr. Enck was given a lot more opportunity to make things right than he would have been had he gotten caught shoplifting a GED study guide from the local Barnes & Noble, but after three years he still couldn’t be bothered to either return the book or pay the fine. The only jerk in this story is him.
If it were sufficient discouragement, the Copperas Cove Public Library would not have had a history of problems with theft and Jory Enck would not have chosen to keep that GED guide for three years and only return it after being arrested.
So just this one deadbeat, as a warning to the others? Or do you support the Copperas Cove statute that caused him to be arrested in the first place? Seems like a fair and pretty simple question.
Zero loss at any cost is not a reasonable target.
Well, what does the city ordinance actually say? Does it say that anyone with an overdue library book is guilty of a crime, or does it say that overdue library books only become a criminal matter after a certain amount of time has passed and the person has been notified that the books need to be returned? I doubt anyone here is in favor of people being thrown into jail without warning the day after their library books are due, but I also doubt that’s what the ordinance in Copperas Cove allows.
I wonder how many people in this thread have ever worked in a library, and how responses change based on that?
I work in a public library building, although I don’t work for the library(I’m a baker in a cafe located there) This library is a great place, one of the things that our city has done right. The knowledge I have of this place I’ve gained from talking with every type of employee here, including, and perhaps most especially, security.
Those who think libraries should shut their eyes to theft problems, in order to be “welcoming”, “open”, “low key”, or “low stress”, are living in a dream world. Or theiy’ve never run a business.
Patrons try and steal stuff all the time, without even checking it out. Or they never return checked out materials. So in order to be “welcoming” the library is supposed to ignore this?
And don’t even get the employees started on people who think the library is a day care center, dropping off little kids and coming back for them later. They are not a homeless shelter either, but tell that to the drunk who passed out in a chair and soiled it.
I wouldn’t support sending police after someone just because they didn’t return a book, but in this case that didn’t happen, the scofflaw was stopped and detained for another reason. And I would support the fine he got.
It says 20 days after the first written notice. The penalty is a fine of up to $200 plus restitution.
Link to the ordinance.
See, one time I went to return a book, but the book drop was full. Everyone else had put their books on top of the box since what else could you do? It was the last day for me to return or face a late fee. So I put the book on top of the box.
Next time I was in a month later, the library told me they didn’t get the book back. I told them where it was put. They told me that they would’ve been happy to waive the late fee since the book drop had been full. However, since I didn’t wait a day and in return the book was stolen, it’s my fault and I’ll need to pay a replacement fee. (Given the area I gave myself a forehead smack; it was very obvious the book would have been stolen but it was midnight and I wasn’t thinking)
Guess what I did? I paid the $20 replacement fee without complaining, because yeah, I put their book out where anyone could take it. My fault.
People who forget to return a library book in a jurisdiction that puts their fines on their record don’t just get arrested the day it’s late. They get arrested after being contacted multiple, maybe even dozens of times to either return the book or pay the fine. I don’t see anything wrong with having a replacement fine tacked onto your record the same exact way overdue parking tickets would be. You stole something, it gets put on your record, and when you break another law and get caught by the police it all comes trailing up behind you. It’s not like the police go out of their way to catch people with overdue fines; they figure if you keep breaking the law eventually they will catch you and you’ll get it all on your head then.
If you’d just played by the rules to begin with, this wouldn’t have happened. If he’d returned the book or paid the fee, it wouldn’t have happened. He had 3 years to pay a simple fee - the repercussion everyone agrees is fine - and he refused to. That is theft.
Alas, working near a library has not helped your reading comprehension. No one has
advocated ignoring overdue books or book theft.
Bitching about people dropping their kids off, homeless people, and people who take books without checking them out has nothing to do with this topic. Are you trying to make the case that society just can’t handle having access to libraries?
Can somebody confirm something for me.
Does this guy now have a criminal record because of the non-return of one library book? And will this criminal record affect his employment prospects?
I once saw a library book mixed in with some others at a garage sale. It had a date stamped in the back of 1973 and was from the library in the next town over. The books were $.25 each, so I bought it and asked for a receipt.
The woman dutifully wrote the address on it and I walked away. The library in the next town had always thoughtfully provided a large metal box for the return of books, so I returned it.
After thoughtfully tucking the receipt inside for use as a handy bookmark, of course. 
In truth I’ll never know what happened then, but I’ll always wonder what cosmic video-game I started that day…
I don’t see it as theft so much as a collections matter. And we don’t throw people in jail for not paying their bills/ignoring collection efforts–that’s why it seems particularly extreme to me (although we can throw them in jail for contempt of court.) You’re welcome to see it as theft, though.
Many applications ask if you have ever been arrested. Not convicted, mind you, but arrested. So he’d have to either report that he has or risk being rejected on the basis of lying. Therefore this could easily cause him employment and housing problems, as being someone who has been arrested, even for no reason at all, is still seen as worse than someone with no record.
Of course some would say that the would-be employer or landlord SHOULD avoid hiring this fellow, as he is clearly an irresponsible thief, and should be shunned accordingly.
You don’t pay what you owe if you deem someone else trying to collect it from you as a bully? Interesting.
None of that helps the people who couldn’t use the book while this assholes was refusing to be “bullied.”
I don’t owe a tax increase. If I check out a book and do not return it on time, I owe and pay a late fee.
Unlike this guy, who let his fee turn into theft which turned into an arrest.