Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

South Carolina Woman Jailed After Failing To Return Movie Rented Nine Years Ago

Posted by samzenpus on from the beyond-the-late-fee dept.

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.'"

11 of 467 comments (clear)

  1. Can we get grammar cops too? by fascismforthepeople · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a movie you renter 9-years earlier?

    I think that statement is worthy of jail time as well.

  2. Statute of limitations by pcjunky · · Score: 5, Informative

    She will need to look up the laws in her state but here in Florida the statute of limitations is 5 years for a written contract. This should be easy to make go away.

    1. Re:Statute of limitations by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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)

    2. Re:Statute of limitations by Nexus7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is a feature of stories based on a dystopian future, and bykn some accounts (Shock Doctrine, I think?) of the present-day US, that the "common folk', you know, the ones with only 1 vote, are subject to increasing harsh punishments to stifle any hint of dissent, let alone revolution. Arresting for not returning DVDs is just a macabre progression from arresting for pot possession.

      I'm sure in South Carolina, this will be only an human-interest story, not a cause of alarm or anything more.

      Corporations get off with no punishment for far worse than illegally foreclosing homes! However your example is apt, since mortgages can be viewed as renting money (not technically however).

      We had a rich man's son get off with no jail time for driving into 4 pedestrians, the judge said he suffered from "affluenza"! Other shocking examples are plenty in the US.

    3. Re:Statute of limitations by tompaulco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:Statute of limitations by compro01 · · Score: 5, Informative

      In your rush to leap the defense of foreclosure, you missed the fact that none of what you're talking about has anything to do with what MickyTheIdiot was talking about, which is shit like being foreclosed on even if you've paid up or being foreclosed on, even though you don't have a mortgage.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  3. Economically Inefficient by jayveekay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Economically Inefficient by PRMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, fine her $100 and call it a day. I mean, after all, she already watched Monster-in-Law. Hasn't she suffered enough?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  4. This is the problem with Netflix, etc. by dacut · · Score: 5, Funny

    How are we going to arrest people on frivolous charges when movies are streamed? I suppose we could make it a felony to fail to rewind a stream when you're done viewing it...

  5. Re: Debtors Prison? by In+hydraulis · · Score: 5, Funny

    If she lost a VHS tape 9 years ago, and the store went under since then, (1) there's no victim

    Are you seriously not seeing the cause-effect relationship here?

  6. Re:Debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you take something. The owner asks for it back. You refuse. You stole it.

    The owner goes to a court to sue you to get it back, because the value is too low for a state prosecutor to care. You ignore the suit. The judge issues an arrest warrant at the request of the owner. The owner then politely sends you several certified letters impressing upon you your duty to resolve the issue. You ignore those letters, and in particular ignore an order of the court.

    Later, you're arrested and forced to appear in court.

    How is that thuggery? For one thing, the police aren't even involved, just the sheriff (an officer of the court). This is old school justice, where the person wronged has to do all the leg work in court to vidicate his rights. This is how things were done long before jack-booted police even existed.