Police visit families over....overdue books?

[LSN80]

I can't understand the logic behind this, despite reading the article over and again. Despite the explanations given by the police or the library, the logic simply doesn't resonate with me. Perhaps someone can help me understand this one:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/03/us/massachusetts-overdue-books/index.html?hpt=us_c2

In December,the Charlton, Massachusetts police force began a library-enduced crackdown on books overdue by 3 months or more. Since that time, they've reportedly made 13 visits to homes to serve a "friendly reminder" that they hadn't returned their books on time, and owed late fees. However, no timetable was given on how late some of these returns were, simply that the library began contacting the police as to how they could help with the overdue books problem. Spokeswoman Cheryl Hansen from the Charlton Library said the following:

"I asked the chief... 'When does something borrowed become stolen? 'The chief said, 'When it's overdue! We thought this would be a kinder way(sending the police), a friendly reminder saying Hey can you bring this back, rather than sending a summons."

I'm not sure how sending police to one's home to ask them to return books is a friendly reminder. Shannon Benoit, who was visited along with her 5 year old daughter police, certainly didn't find it to be friendly, especially for her daughter. Benoit was quoted as saying:

"She's 5; she didn't understand. She burst into tears and asked me, "Are they going to arrest me?"

Of course, the other side of the story is this: The books had been overdue since April, books that were promptly returned following the visit from police. Hansen(the Library Spokeswoman) added that the despite a warning letter and library calls made to the family, the books had remained unreturned.
As stated earlier, Hansen thought this would be a softer approach then sending a summons. I'm not so sure about that, personally. Children do need to learn responsibility, and that should come from home. I think the summons in the mail is the far better way to do this, especially since it's the parent's responsibility to return the books in the first place. If it means getting a summons to appear in court for the parent if they don't return/pay late fees by a certain date, then so be it. But having police visit the house seems far too heavy-handed to me. Hansen commented once more about the new crackdown policy:

"The police-backed crackdown has since inspired more prompt book returns among library patrons.We've gotten quite a bit back, even some things that weren't overdue!"

I'm not excusing the irresponsibility of the parents in these situations, nor am I arguing against a checks and balances system here. Libraries are especially vulnerable, as they rent books for free, and their only course of action used to be suspending lending privileges for those who hadn't returned/paid late fees. But still, I think there are better options then sending police to homes for collection. Did the parents expose their child to this? Absolutely. But is this the best way? I don't believe so.

Do you believe sending police to homes regarding overdue books and late fees is appropriate action to take?

Any other thoughts or discussion regarding this topic is welcomed and encouraged.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'm with LSN: this is overkill. Look at the example listed here, a 5 year old. A five year old has very limited ability to return a book to the library on her own. There are probably a lot of 5 year olds that don't get the concept of how long they've had it for and when it's due back. Her parents hold the responsibility, not her. I get the idea of wanting your books back, but sending police to their home? Isn't that just a BIT extreme? I mean, I know there have only been 13 visits, but aren't there probably more important crimes and situations that need to be looked into by these policemen? "Well gee I'm sorry your bank was robbed and your teller took a bullet, but we needed to find out what happened to The Very Happy Chipmunk." I'd agree with the idea of suspending the person's ability to check books out or sending them letters etc, but sending police? That's just way too much and as shown in the article, kids aren't going to understand what's going on and it'll probably scare them to the point where they're afraid of checking stuff out.

 

[Sparky]

*takes a look at the pile of overdue library books in the corner just gathering dust, gulps and thinks thank god I don't live other there anymore.

Maybe they have somehow tied Overdue books as the first thing people do as a kid before the lead up to credit fraud, and stuff like that so they want to put the scare in now before they start getting credit cards and mobile phones without paying them.
or It could just be leading up to a certain thing, something as simple as an overdue library book could catch people out doing actual illegal stuff without the need of a warrant to get inside the house.

Do you believe sending police to homes regarding overdue books and late fees is appropriate action to take?
If the police don't have more important things to do at the time, then yeah it is appropriate action. A Library book is still government property, so it is really still classed as stealing. It's not like the police are giving them a fine ontop of the late fee's, or a court date to sort the matter out. If you get a fine and don't pay it they knock on your door, so I don't see the difference.

Did the parents expose their child to this? Absolutely.

Not Necessarily. Mum used to ask me all the time if I had overdue library books, I would always say no regardless of if I did or not. It's not my mum's fault I didn't/don't return them.

Edit: Skimmed the opening post, missed half of it out... >.<, I find that it's Appropriate only if the kid is a certain age, say 13 Onwards. But doing that to a five year old who shouldn't even be able to have their own Library card in the first place is going a bit too far.

 

[RockFan89]

From the article:

But a Charlton Public Library spokeswoman said that it wasn't just Hailey's overdue books that prompted the police intervention. She also noted $100 worth of late fees for overdue audio books checked out by Hailey's father

I think we should also take into consideration the fact that the cops weren't coming for the child, she just happened to be there when they confronted the mother. So when considering this, we should take the 5 year old out of it.

I know this is how my library worked, and I'm pretty sure most work like this, but you're not allowed to check anything out if you have overdue books or unpaid fines. So I'm pretty sure the library had already suspended their privalleges.

Seeing as this is an unpaid bill, I would think that the most appropiate way to handle this would be to hurt their credit rating, and I'm sure that if they were threatened with this, they would have responded as well.

If that doesn't work, then I'd agree with Sparky. These police probably don't work in a high crime area, so they could take 20 minutes to do this. The parents here were stealing from the public and deserved to eventually get punished. It's been 9 months, and it's clear that the issue wasn't about misplacing the items but just a flat out defiance of the rules; therefore, a police visit does seem appropiate.

 

[LSN80]

I think we should also take into consideration the fact that the cops weren't coming for the child, she just happened to be there when they confronted the mother. So when considering this we should take the 5 year old out of it.

Technically, they weren't coming for anyone. They were there to serve a "friendly reminder" that the child's books and the audio books taken out by her father were overdue. But take the 5 year old child out of this, and is it still CNN news? Doubtful. Why? The idea that police go to homes to police where a checks and balances systems is already in place(phone calls, letters, suspension of privileges, court summons), especially when young children are involved in the matter, is absurd. Is it truly worth scaring young children in the name of getting books back? Wrong place, wrong time, I get that. But why risk it when there are less invasive ways of doing it?

Seeing as this is an unpaid bill, I would think that the most appropiate way to handle this would be to hurt their credit rating, and I'm sure that if they were threatened with this, they would have responded as well.

Yet this wasn't even part of the process. It was reminders by letter, phone calls, and then police visits. This is another option that is far better then the police visiting the home.

These police probably don't work in a high crime area, so they could take 20 minutes to do this. The parents here were stealing from the public and deserved to eventually get punished. It's been 9 months, and it's clear that the issue wasn't about misplacing the items but just a flat out defiance of the rules; therefore, a police visit does seem appropiate.

The level of crime in the area is irrelevant to me. The summons to me is far more appropriate and friendly then a visit from police. It eliminates the little child from the matter, and it truly puts the onus on the parent to either pay up, or go to court. It leaves the child out of a frightful situation. With a child that's five years old, the responsibility lies with the parent, not the child. Even the chance of her being involved is one that shouldn't be.

 

[Slyfox696]

I think people are looking at this through an incredibly skewed perspective.

Police officers are not bad people. Our society has vilified these people, but most officers are good people doing their jobs. What's wrong with sending the police to remind people? Why are people so scared of the police? A couple weeks ago, I was outside in our neighborhood at 2 in the morning looking for our kitten who had gotten out during the middle of the night when our backdoor blew open because of wind. As I was walking the streets, an officer came by to say, "Hi", making sure I wasn't doing anything wrong. Basically, he was protecting our neighborhood. When I told him what was going on, he was very nice and friendly about it, asked what the cat looked like, and he said he'd keep an eye out for it. I then saw him drive around our neighborhood a few times looking for the cat.

Everyone seems to think this is a big story because the police are scary people. This is a non-story. The parent needs to teach her child that the police are not bad people, they are good people who are trying to do the right thing. Instead of running to CNN to say how the "big bad policeman" scared her kid, she should be telling her child how she messed up as a parent, and how appreciative she is of the officer for reminding her of the books some other child would want to read.

This is not overkill, it is not overzealous, this is a non-story. The sad part is people will side with the irresponsible parent, instead of recognizing this is EXACTLY what the police should be doing.

Ridiculous story and shame on CNN for running it to try and paint police officers in a negative light.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I think its overkill but its not a big deal at the end of the day. Usually a library just doesn't let a person take out more books until the fee is paid up but sending a cop there to scare a 5 year old kid is pretty ridiculous.

I don't blame the cops though, in all fairness they were sent there by the library and technically are just doing their jobs, I think its crazy that the cops there are that committed to upholding the law in that town, hell I lived in a small town as a kid, got robbed at 12 by 5 teenagers with weapons and the cops did nothing so I actually commend the cops for being that committed.

All they did was go to the person's house and give them a reminder about the overdue books, how would they know that its a 5 year old? Chances are the library called them, asked them to give the family a reminder because of a $100 fine and that was it. I really doubt they said it was a 5 year old and these are the books that are overdue so go scare the crap out of her. If you want to be upset be upset at the library owners for sending cops there, all the cops were doing is their job. They were asked to remind people who owed money to the library, good for them for doing their job.

I think the story itself is ridiculous though and I can't believe CNN would actually waste time to post such a story.

SIDE NOTE: Those Benoit's just can't be controlled.

 

[Mustang Sally]

If the police don't have more important things to do at the time, then yeah it is appropriate action.

Agreed, although that's a big "if." When my parents owned a store, it used to be they could call the police if someone wrote them a check that bounced. The police would make a phone call or a visit.....and payment was usually forthcoming. In the mid-90's, however, it was announced that police would no longer be doing this, as they had limited manpower and felt their services would be better served in other areas. The town merchants didn't like it, but that's how it was going to be.

So, it's hard to believe they can dispatch cops to people's houses to monitor overdue library books. After all, issuing a bad check for over $1000 is a Class D felony in Connecticut (not that it's usually prosecuted). What is an overdue library book in comparison to that?

Still, it's people's cavalier attitudes toward minor offenses that brought this type of enforcement about. What are libraries supposed to do? I would imagine people laugh off the overdue notices received in the mail, knowing that nothing is going to result from it. But if libraries want to send officials to someone's home, let them send their own employees, just as schools would send a truant officer to a student's home to scare him into attending class......not the police.

And, oh yes.....let's leave the 5-year-olds out of these home visits. It's their parents responsibility to make sure books are returned, just as it's the parents job to make sure the kid goes to school. If the parent wants to yell at the child after the cops have left, that's their business.

 

[One to Remember]

SIDE NOTE: Those Benoit's just can't be controlled.

burnnn!!

Heres the thing, we are calling it overkill because its a library but its more then that. If the library had everyone of its card holders pulling that stunt it would collapse. The community would then lose a valuable resource.. Adding credence to the library's actions is the fact that when the letter was sent no one responded or claimed to have the book but when the cops came all of a sudden everyone had both. So isnt that proof the family's were trying to stunt on the library? If the library can prove its property has been yanked by anyone then they have the right to utilize law enforcement. People have gone to jail for stealing deoderant (i knew a bitch that did it at K Mart), and juicy fruit so the cops issuing them a warning for a 100 dollar late fee is good combared to the guy in the pokey for stealing a 2 dollar item.. Library is also strapped for cash so of course they wanted to go out swinging, you all need to respect that.

As far as police resources, if they were in the area the stop might not had been out of the way or these could had been retired officers or off duty bailiffs, or reserve officers or even the brass, who upon leaving the streets just do paper work anyways..

 

[Dagger Dias]

I think that sending the police to go collect overdue library books is rather ridiculous. Don't they have crimes to stop? The police have better things to do that should obviously take priority over something like obtaining a borrowed book. If the book had been stolen then things would be different. The libraries should just stick to late fees and suspending library cards for overdue books because there is no reason to involve the police unless something got stolen or another actual crime was committed.

 

[Remix]

I think that sending the police to go collect overdue library books is rather ridiculous. Don't they have crimes to stop?

Like theft. Which is what "borrowing" a library book and never returning it amounts to.

The police have better things to do that should obviously take priority over something like obtaining a borrowed book.

Like theft. Which is why they were called in to do that.

If the book had been stolen then things would be different.

See above. They were asked when "borrowing" became theft. Thery gave an answer and were called to recover the stolen goods.

The libraries should just stick to late fees and suspending library cards for overdue books because there is no reason to involve the police unless something got stolen or another actual crime was committed.

They do. The police were called in after the books were 8 months overdue, $100 of fines had been accrued and reminder letters ignored. And funnily enough it's working. Books are coming back without the need to send a letter in the post or the cops around.

Did you even read the article?