Slashdot Mirror
South Carolina Woman Jailed After Failing To Return Movie Rented Nine Years Ago
An anonymous reader writes "Could you imagine being arrested for failing to return a movie you rented 9-years earlier? Well that's just what happened to one South Carolina woman. 'According to a Feb 13 arrest report, 27-year-old Kayla Finley rented Monster-in-Law in 2005 from now defunct video store Dalton video. The woman failed to return the video within the 72 hour rental limit, eventually leading up to her arrest 9 years later.'"
a movie you renter 9-years earlier?
I think that statement is worthy of jail time as well.
I thought you couldn't be arrested for owing debt? Wasn't that the point of credit scores and bankruptcy laws?
Arresting someone for theft under $10 ("Monster-In-Law" on DVD retails for about $5) seems to be a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars. A more efficient punishment would be to seize wages/tax refunds/etc. in the amount of the theft + some additional punitive amount.
They always have a choice.
No statute of limitations for most crimes in South Carolina. Failure to return rental property of a value of less than $2000 is a misdemeanor carrying up to a $1000 fine and/or 30 days in jail. Probably a few bonus months for failure to appear back in 2005. And she gets to forever in the future check that box "I have been convicted of a crime" and therefore no good jobs for her, and since it's an FDIC disqualifying crime (larceny), she's forever barred from having a job in the financial industry.
And you know what most people will have to say about that? "Well, she should have thought of that before she stole that videotape".
(IANAL, and certainly IANAL in South Carolina)
I wonder how many of the same people think that corporations getting off scott free after illegally foreclosing on homes is just okay dokey...
Probably a few bonus months for failure to appear back in 2005
Well, if she was properly served, then she definitely should have appeared. If she was not properly served, than the case should be thrown out.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I once had to pay $50 for two redbox DVDs which I did properly return. Apparently their machine didn't register it or got disconnected from the internet. They also said they audited the box and did not find the videos. However, their audit was incorrect, because I returned it. I don't do business with redbox anymore.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Police DO NOT have discretion with arrest warrants, they never have and they NEVER SHOULD.
Police with no discretion are worse than those who are corrupt.
At least the ones with discretion can pretend they choose not to do wrong.
The ones without? Will do wrong, and pretend that their orders made them do it, so they have no choice.
I prefer authority with responsibility myself.
If lenders refuse to make markets, the government (or the Fed) should step in and make them. If private banks refuse to make mortgage loans, Fannie and Freddie should do it, because it's in the public interest, in the General Welfare. The Fed can loan them money at 0% so they can invest in T-bills at 3% and keep the loans rolling over forever.
1) The victim is whoever absorbed the assets of the company at its closing. They've lost the value of the tape.
2) Being a licensed rental copy, the replacement cost is in the range of a hundred dollars or more.
The basic issue is that the law doesn't get to be ignored just because the media can spin the story to sound trivial. If someone robbed a store of $100 worth of merchandise, had an arrest warrant issued at the time, then spent nine years on the run, would it still be unreasonable for them to be arrested today? At the most basic level, the purpose of law is to provide a consistent accounting of what behavior society does or does not approve of. If a magistrate chose to neglect an old outstanding arrest warrant, then there'd be something very wrong.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
No, it's not a violation of the law to exercise discretion. The police have sued many times for that right (and almost always win), so they could have used it this time as well. They chose not to.
Learn to love Alaska
What's more, the cops should figure out a way to get him at least a few menial jobs where he is paid in food so he can feed his family without having to resort to stealing.
Ah, so the police are social workers as well? They'll be glad to know that. Think about that for a moment. Yes, the police should have compassion towards people, but no, they aren't mommy, daddy, the rich uncle and everyone else in the extended family. They're police.
In this case, they did the absolute minimum needed. They arrested her, then let her go. She will probably end up with a small fine and a slap on the wrist - as befits the crime of stealing a VHS tape. Life goes on.
Apparently, however, there is little life left in Slashdot. Is this newsworthy at all? It's basically click bait. Come on guys, there are better articles in this in the Firehose.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I've had the police let me go for jumping a red directly in front of a police car (not quite as retarded as it sounds honest). You, and I, could see that as the police prioritising their time and a good thing. The fact that it has been shown, again and again, that discretion isn't applied equally to different races and genders should make us reconsider that though. I shouldn't be getting an easier ride from law enforcement because I'm white middle class than someone who is black lower class, but 'discretion' encourages exactly that.