Some Of Our Books


« WiNE Program Out! | Main | New Methods of Ethics 1 Programme »

July 17, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The fines are in place, I presume, to get the books back in timely fashion. The library wants the books back so they are more readily available for other users. Do you return the books but delay paying the fines?


Correct. I get the books back always within a few days of the due date. I just delay paying the fines.

Well, you're obviously not free riding - at best the library has lost the interest it would have accrued between the point of non-payment and the point of actual payment. But I doubt fines are deposited in an account where this would be the case.

Furthermore, you're acting within the rules. The ability to pay later is a facility extended to all. Whilst some people may be in (actual) need of it and you are not, making use of it disadvantages no one. So, again, not 'free-riding'.

However you are, in a sense, behaving as if a fine was a price (See: ) but this point pertains to incurring the fines in the first place rather than not paying them immediately. Furthermore, within certain limits, it may not be unethical to treat library fines in this way as it does not appear to inconvenience the staff, as is the case in the childcare example.

(You may risk inconveniencing someone who wants a particular book you have, but it is a minor worry, especially if the library has a system for other borrowers to recall books).

What could be said is that your refusal to immediately pay relatively trivial sums in library fines reflects badly on your character, but even that seems a stretch (and returning books in a tardy fashion seems more damning).

One could find in favour of this behaviour if one considers it is less inconvenient for the library to process one payment of $10 rather than 10 of $1. Indeed, one could find in favour of incurring fines if the books one has are unlikely to be in demand and the fines provide additional revenue to the library - but such is the (il)logic of 'rational actor' policies.

Is your characterization of public libraries as 'gratuitous' accurate? No doubt for some of the population (those of us who can afford to buy books, pay for personal internet access, or who have access to our academic libraries) this characterization may be correct. But my neighborhood library (in an urban area) is more than just a book depository. It is an after-school tutoring and safe space for students, it hosts community meetings, it provides study materials and space for adults whom I see studying ESL and GED materials, and it's probably no exaggeration to say it provides the only internet access for some of the neighborhood's residents, which no doubt means their primary means of accessing the news, too. Given a different picture of what a public library means for many, it takes on a much larger civic and political significance than you suggest. (This is no doubt a somewhat idealized portrait of public libraries.)

Using your expressivist argument, then, paying library fines is a way of showing support for an institution that has significant civic and political value. For those of us who can afford the fines, it could be that a failure to pay signifies our disrespect for an institution that is only of nominal personal benefit to us but extensive personal value for others (and public value, as well).

It depends very much on the facts on the ground for the particular library. For a lot of public libraries the transaction is complicated by the fact that the revenue generated by fines goes into the public coffers, to the council or local government, rather than back to the library itself. And, if we suppose that the library's budget is not tied to their skill at debt recovery, the outstanding fine one owes wouldn't matter materially to the library at all. In a case like this, as was mentioned, the fine is meant to ensure that books come back on time. If delaying payment somehow waters down the deterrent effect, then there might be a problem with taking advantage of that option.

As an employee in the circulation department of two public libraries, I hope I can offer some perspective. These libraries charge either $.10 or $.20 per day for books and $.50 or $1.00 (!) per day for DVD's. I do feel some patrons want to clear their debts immediately. I'll even say.. "You have $3.00 in fines if you'd like to pay that today but you don't have to."

Personally, I favor eliminating fines. The traditional public library model of individual property tax-based funding, in my opinion, should be all patrons need to pay. Their dollars buy the books and services and pay our wages (at least in my state). It seems unfair to me that we should charge for being "late" on what are, on their face, arbitrary loan periods.

Fines of course exist to encourage patrons to return materials. However, this could be just as easily accomplished by billing patrons for the materials until they're returned. Say, once an item is 30 or 60 days overdue, they receive a notice of their "delinquency." If they return the materials, no fines, all good. If they don't, eventually they'll be billed for the cost of the item (and after a longer period of time sent to collections). Most patrons in my experience recognize the need to return materials for the good of the rest of the users.

Other fine-free models I've heard of include giving patrons an annual credit of fines. So, each year a patron gets $20.00 of grace fines. If they end up racking up more than the agreed upon lee-way, then they start to be charged.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ethics at PEA Soup

PPE at PEA Soup

Like PEA Soup

Search PEA Soup


  • Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed in any given post reflect the opinion of only that individual who posted the particular entry or comment.