Twelve good citizens and slaves

The fact that jurors and/or their employers will suffer loss is clearly foreseen and accepted by the government. The costs, in time and money, incurred in respect of one juror's period of service comprise a fixed cost (for preparations concerning transport, childcare, leave, signing over of fees, etc.) plus a variable cost proportional to the number of days of service. For a longer trial, the fixed cost is spread over a larger number of days. Therefore, if the aim were to pay fair remuneration, the daily fee would be highest for the first day of a trial and lower for subsequent days. But in fact the daily fee is lowest -- about half the minimum legal wage -- for the first three days and reaches its plateau on the 21st day. That is, jurors are paid at unsustainably low rates until they have taken as much loss as they can bear, and only then is their payment lifted to a level that might be sustainable.

Although the Jury Act provides for reimbursement of losses incurred as a result of jury service, this provision applies only in the unlikely event that the juror serves more than 30 days on one trial. In other cases of loss, the juror is left out of pocket with no hope of compensation.

No ordinary charity

There are, no doubt, some people who would dismiss the above criticism and exhort all prospective jurors to "do their duty'' without question or complaint, accepting any losses or privations in the name of community service.

These people would have a point if the State was a charitable organization dependent on the generosity of individual volunteers. But it isn't. With its power to make laws and enforce them, and to raise taxes and spend them, the State can achieve its ends with or without individual largesse. In this case, therefore, the overriding moral principle is the right of workers to be paid a living wage. The State has the duty and the ability to uphold that right on behalf of twelve good citizens and true, but chooses not to.