Your reading comprehension isn’t super great, huh?
It’s not necessarily about being rare and valuable (and speaking as an academic librarian sometimes rare and valuable is allowed to be checked out). It’s about all the other library patrons who don’t get to use that resource because someone else was selfish jerk. It’s about the time and effort to order and process the replacement. Your analogy would be more appropriate if, you had written sometimes a person steals a $50,000 ring, so we should treat the guy that steals $50 ring from the fun jewelry department of the jewelry store exactly like the other hypoethetical ring thief, right? (For the record, I say throw the book at both thieves).
The racket would be stealing the books, not collecting more fines.
Yeah, that would be a great racket. I’m sure there’s a huge market for secondhand books with library markings all over them, and who would suspect that the person selling these hot books actually worked at the library from which they were stolen? It’s not like my employment there is a matter of public record!
I’m sure you’re right. Who would EVER steal a library book?
That would be crazy!
I mean other than that guy who got arrested for stealing a library book.
I guess this librarian must have been framed by a patron. Poor lady!
http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2005/08/ljarchives/ils-lincoln-library-staffer-not-so-honest-sold-library-donations-on-ebay/
I can imagine a Far Side cartoon — When librarians go bad.
She wasn’t a librarian and her method of stealing books – which were not books marked for the library’s shelves but donated materials that should have been sold to raise money for the library – was completely different from the idiotic “racket” you suggested. As Flying Ghoti has already pointed out, there are a lot of ways someone who works in a library could steal books, but it would take an unusually stupid thief to go about it in the manner you described.
I’m not surprised that someone with your bizarre ideas about libraries would come up with this weird conspiracy theory about how library workers are stealing books and framing patrons for it, but it is a bit surprising that you’re suddenly concerned about the theft of library materials. You’re the one who keeps saying that stealing library books shouldn’t be a crime and that libraries should have their funding cut if they dare go to the police about stolen materials.
This woman’s job would never have involved checking the shelf for a book that had not been properly turned it? I’m quite sure it would. And you’d trust her to do that?
Other than the obvious, that stealing is wrong, what is so idiotic about this method?
A worker checks the shelf, locates the “missing” book, denies its presence, and takes it home. The book remains “lost” by the patron, who is billed for it. The library’s system already does not acknowledge that the book is in the building at all, so it’s pretty risk-free.
Do you really not see any difference between someone checking out a book and failing to return it and someone shoving a book in their backpack and leaving with it? This system whereby we borrow books and are fined if we return them late has been around for a long time. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good system. One where we risk arrest is not better. How is making people scared to use the library a positive thing?
When you’re poor, being able to bring a whole stack of books you can’t afford to buy is a fantastic thing. When you have to worry that you’d face arrest if your numerous other poverty-related problems got in the way and something happened to a book, the risk becomes too great.
Even when I only had $8 in the bank I still wouldn’t have been scared by arrest being the final straw for a long overdue library book, because in this case all you have to do is call the library in order to keep the threat of arrest from happening.
The ordinance states that if you have a book checked out that is more than 90 days overdue AND you have not attempted to make any contact at all with the library after their repeated notifications, the warrant is put on your record. The library attempts to both call and email you multiple times.
I’m a bit curious as to how many people are scared by the above and would not check books out at this library because of it.
No, I do not see a difference between someone leaving with a book and never returning it and a person leaving with a book…and never returning it? The sticking point in this case isn’t how they left with it; it’s the fact that they never return it.
Oh, well, if you’re quite sure of it. You couldn’t even figure out from the article what this woman’s job actually was, but now you’re the big expert on what her duties were.
Funny, for someone who keeps criticizing other people’s reading comprehension skills you certainly seem to have a lot of difficulty processing written information. I’ve already pointed out some of the flaws with your proposed method, although I’ll add that the part about framing a patron is particularly stupid as it practically guarantees that at least one person will be loudly insisting that if the book can’t be found then a library employee must have done something wrong. Weirder and dumber crimes have certainly occurred in real life, but your belief that this is a clever scheme says a lot more about you than it does about what reasonable people should be concerned about when it comes to using the library.
I do not see any significant moral distinction between Mr. Enck checking out a book and refusing to either return or pay for it and someone sneaking away with a book they didn’t check out and refusing to either return or pay for it. There is probably a legal difference even in Copperas Cove, though – it seems unlikely that someone known to have stolen a book they hadn’t first checked out would have been sent a letter asking them to either return or pay for the book and then allowed to think it over for three years before being arrested.
I think it’s pretty offensive that you assume the poor are so prone to theft that they can’t even trust themselves to handle library materials responsibly.
http://lisnews.org/node/15801
Title: “Librarian Sells Books Donated to the Library…Again”
If Library and Information Science News sees fit to call her a “librarian,” so do I.
I did not say librarians stealing books was a reason to avoid using the library. I said that if one turns in a book and the system says you didn’t, personally looking for the book in the library is the smarter course of action.
I did not say that poor people are prone to theft, as I do not believe checking books out and intending to return them, then failing to do so is theft.
A wealthy person can simply pay for the missing books if necessary. To replace a few missing books may be hundreds of dollars. If there is a perceived risk that a zero tolerance policy that may lead to arrest is in place, paying for the missing books over a reasonable period of time may not be accepted.
Back when I was poor enough to be stuck using T-shirts as diapers and washing them in the tub, my crack-smoking neighbor actually broke into my home and stole all of my valuables–a Walkman cassette player, a 4" black and white TV, and yes, even my books. How I loved that I could walk to the two miles to the library with my baby and fill her stroller with books! I would not have taken the chance if I thought arrest was a possibility. I wouldn’t have been able to afford bail. My child would be put in foster care.
It’s idiotic because you’re adding an extra step. If you’re going to steal books, why not just steal a book? Why involve a missing book from a patron at all? And if that’s your plan, that limits your options of what books you can steal. You’ve basically created the anti-Hans Gruber, a completely unexceptional and uncommon thief.
All three links the LISNews site cites are broken. This isn’t proof of anything.
And anyway, a librarian stealing donated books (which are unmarked and are often like-new) is very different from a librarian using some roundabout scheme to frame a patron for a lost book so they can abscond with a possibly ratty and marked-up library copy.
Whew, quite a read over what seems like a pretty simple issue.
I am not sure but it appears the big issue is that some people here are not used to how ‘the system’ works, or have not dealt with legal affairs directly.
I believe I have seen this written above but I’m going to write it out anyway.
Man checks out book.
Book Goes overdue.
(Time passes)
Reminder note sent.
(More time passes)
Another reminder note.
(More time passes)
Reminder note with threat of escalation.
(More time passes)
Final note with threat of escalation.
(More time passes)
Library passes information to courts.
(More time passes)
Courts send note.
(More time passes)
Courts send note with threat of escalation.
(More time passes)
Courts issue final warning.
(More time passes)
Courts issue warrant.
Then at some point when the person is stopped by police and they check his record, lo and behold there’s the warrant.
What seems lost in all this argument is the that this guy wasn’t arrested for an library book per se, he was arrested for ignoring the courts. And if you have *ever *had dealings with the courts before you will understand that ignoring the courts is not an option. Ever.
There was a point in time where this ceased to be an overdue library book and became a court order. Crap gets serious then.
If I had the opportunity to write the headline for this story it would be something like “Man Ignores Simple Problem Until It Escalates To The Point He Gets Bitchslapped”
Because really there is just one person at fault here - Mr. Enck. He could have taken time at any point up to his arrest to prevent this outcome, and he chose not to.
Absolutely correct.
A relative of mine works at the Copperas Cove Library, and they were kind of surprised by all the media coverage this has been getting. As far as the city of Copperas Cove is concerned, he stole city property. Like Lamia said, the library really has nothing to do with it. It’s a city law.
As has been pointed out above, what would the punishment be if you shoplifted a book from Barnes & Nobles? That is a criminal offense. What if you stole $20 directly from the city treasury? You bet you’d get arrested. The fact that it is a library book does not make it less of a crime than if he had stolen any other form of property.
Further, this has absolutely nothing to do with discouraging people from using the library (although my relative reports that many angry patrons have thrown their library cards at them). I still check out stacks of books from the Cove library. I check out so many books from the various Killeen area libraries that I have to keep my receipts so I can keep track of them all.
I do this because when I took possession of someone else’s property I have a moral and legal obligation to protect it. To damage, discard, or steal someone’s property after they trusted you with it is neither civilized nor compassionate. This has less to do with the silliness of it being “just” a library book, and more to do with the fact that this (allegedly civilized) person who ignored the court’s summons. We cannot have a civilized society if the accused has the right to ignore a summons as he wishes, because in his mind the offense was too petty to be bothered with.
And BTW, Copperas Cove just ticketed me $80 when my mother-in-law accidently let my dogs run loose. I reported to court IAW the summons and paid my fine like a civilized human being.
Sweet fuckity Christ, why do you keep acting like the fucking SWAT team broke down this guy’s door the day after his book was due? Your arguments on this point are completely inane and bordering on deliberately dense. No one is going to arrest you for stealing a library book and put your precious widdle offspring in foster care unless you (a) live in this podunk fuckwit Texas hell-hole, (b) repeatedly and pointedly refuse any sort of contact the library makes to get their property back, and (c) violate some other podunk fuckwith Texas hell-hole law in such a way as to get your record pulled up by Sheriff Buford T. Justice, who otherwise would have no reason to know you have a warrant out.
ETA: Apologies to solosam’s relative if my repeated slurs against Copperas Cove were out of line. 
Copperas Cove sounds more like Cabot Cove.
Many of these arguments are inane. Yes, it’s a bad thing to ignore the courts–the point is that it’s overkill to refer an overdue book to the courts to begin with. And yes, every time you get pulled over, they will run your name. It’s bizarre how many people are arguing that it’s not a big deal since you won’t be arrested as long as you are never pulled over or ever have any contact with the police. A warrant is always a big deal unless you’re planning to move to Alaska and live in a yurt for the rest of your life.
I don’t think anyone is going to change anyone else’s mind on this topic.
[whacks the horse one more time]
But is it overkill to report stolen property? Because that’s what happened here.
Look at it this way, say the guy came into the library, disconnected a keyboard from a computer, and walked out the door. He has just removed about $20 worth of property from the library. Should a warrant be issued in this case? And if yes, why is a book different?
We’ve been over this about 50 times in this thread. I don’t know why you want to do it again.
To me, the most compelling argument against this law is that it is designed to punish poor people for being poor. And that, besides this $20 book, it’s unclear how much the library is saving each year from these summons. I’d bet it’s hundreds and not even thousands of dollars.