PUBLIC FORUM : READERS RENDER VERDICT ON BID TO RAISE JUROR PAY.

I have to laugh at the impudence of the powers that be in paying a juror $5 per day. They even have the gall to pay for jurors' transportation to the courthouse, but to get home, they have to pay their own way.

Let us examine the circumstances that surround this audacity to label such a chore as citizens' duty.

The judge receives in the neighborhood of $98,000 per annum. The attorneys in court are receiving anything from $200 to $500 per hour for their services. In the Menendez case, one attorney refused to represent one of the brothers because he had no more money. How come she was not informed of her civic duty?

The bailiffs receive anything from $40,000 to $45,000 for their ``qualified help.''

The court reporter - I mean a menial one - receives $25 per hour.

It appears that everyone is getting paid except that person who is saddled with making the all-important decision of guilty or not guilty.

The suggested $40 per day, for eight hours, breaks down to $5 per hour, and jurors still have to pay to get home. The woman who cleans my home gets more.

There is an old saying: ``You get what you pay for.'' If you want qualified help, pay for it.

- Montague Capper 

Canoga Park

The supervisors, in proposing an increase in juror pay, are behaving like typical unimaginative politicians - define a problem and then throw money at it.

The proposal assumes that mere money compensates for a time-wasting process that intimidates, insults and demeans potential jurors.

Retired people receive their income whether they serve or not. For most working people, jury duty is subsidized by the employers, at least in my experience - the worker signs over juror pay in exchange for regular pay from the employer.

For the self-employed with overhead and payroll to meet, the small increase is not likely to make enough difference to increase their participation.

The Constitution guarantees an impartial jury by one's peers. But one need only look at the inquisition of the jury, called voir dire in legalese, to find out why most people resent being called.

Besides the fact that 90 percent of the attorneys cannot pronounce the term correctly, this process of legalized jury tampering is designed to produce anything but a jury of peers. Voir dire, complete with ham attorneys prancing about asking ludicrous questions, like what bumper stickers a person has on his car, is designed to weed out anyone with intelligence or experience that might cause the juror to think for himself, weigh evidence from a perspective of life experience and render true justice from the heart.

Rather, it is designed to intimidate jurors into doing just what the puppet masters want. Then when jurors bring in an unfair or unpopular verdict based on evidence withheld, so as not to ``mislead'' the jury, the system is blamed and the puppet masters call for smaller juries, nonunanimous votes or professional jurors - read court-controlled prostitutes.

Some 20 or 25 years ago, a famous attorney wrote a book about his most famous cases. In the last chapter, he took issue with our methods of jury selection and castigated a system that ``dumbs down'' the jury and deliberately weeds out people whose cumulative life experiences can bring wisdom and judgment to their verdicts.

``Impartial'' doesn't mean uneducated, unenlightened, uninformed or unaware. It does mean neutral, objective and unbiased. In a misguided attempt to achieve the latter, attorneys and judges weed out precisely those citizens who are sophisticated enough to be objective about evidence.

- Susan Kennedy

Sun Valley

The pay should certainly be raised to at least the minimum wage, maybe more. The 15 cents per mile one way should be raised to at least 20 cents to 25 cents both ways. People shouldn't have to pay for the ``privilege'' of being on jury duty.

The fairness of the pay is important, but so is the current ``slave labor'' mode that leads to abusive use of the juror's time. Here are some examples.

Too much time is spent just to be available at a moment's notice. Why can't the need for juries be determined ahead of time, like all the other stuff that gets such meticulous attention?

Too much court time is used for jury selection. A more comprehensive juror characterization process is needed and lawyers need to select the characteristics they want to have and to reject. A large pool of jurors would give a more diverse opportunity for automatic selection.

Jurors need better preparation for service. Videos, interactive programs and courtroom visits, among other techniques should be part of a comprehensive training program.

- Donald R. Norvell

Sun Valley

Increasing the pay from $5 per day to $40 would make jury duty less of a hardship on many who rely on a decent salary to make ends meet in today's economy.

However, this increase will bring more potential jurors who will be money-motivated rather than civic-minded, resulting in lower quality. Stricter guidelines for jury selection would have to be created to weed out those looking for an easy way to make a buck.

If we increase the pay and we really want the system to work, then we should also look at increasing the mileage fee to 20 cents two ways, adding special benefits such as guaranteed meal allowances from Day One of jury service and creating a three-level 100 percent volunteer jury, much like the grand jury. Here is how it would work:

Category A: Full-time jury volunteers who serve a maximum of six months service.

Category B: Part-time volunteers with a maximum of one year in-court service.

Category C: Standby volunteers who are put into a pool of reserves, maximum service two years.

This system could eliminate the costly and time-consuming search for potential jurors. It would also reduce court costs.

- Receil Wm. Seymour

Pacoima

I agree with the proposal to raise jury pay to $40 per day. A few years ago, I was called to jury service, but I needed to be excused because I worked at a fast-food restaurant and my boss wouldn't make up the difference in my pay. Any extended service would have put an unbearable financial burden on me.

Most companies that have higher-paid workers step up to the plate and pay the difference. With an increase in juror pay, workers on the lower end of the pay scale would be able to serve and have a voice in the judicial process.

- Eric Rowley

Simi Valley 

Personally, I felt insulted by being paid $5 a day and mileage one way when I know that the judges, lawyers and other court personnel are receiving large salaries. It costs more than $5 and mileage one way for gas and lunch.

- Sam Martin

Sylmar

Increasing the pay for jurors from $5 per day to $40 per day is a step in the right direction. However, consider that $40 per day is equivalent to only $5 per hour, which is slightly higher than the current minimum wage rate. How many people could afford to take time off from their jobs to serve as jurors for this rate of pay?

The only people who would benefit from such an arrangement would be those people who are either earning the minimum wage or the unemployed. A better solution would be for companies to pay employees who have been selected for jury service their regular salary while they are on jury duty.

I am told that the state of Massachusetts has a law that mandates employers to pay their employees for jury duty. Perhaps this could be accomplished in the form of a tax break or some other incentive vs. having another mandate sent down from Sacramento or Washington.

If prospective jurors didn't have to worry about losing a portion or all of their income, they would be more likely to volunteer. There would then be a larger pool of jurors available to the court system throughout the state. This would be a benefit to all parties involved.

- Steve Beland

Van Nuys

The names of prospective jurors are in a computer - I imagine by groups or by areas. The computer is programmed to select the jurors at random from these groups.

I know of several people who are called to jury duty each year on the same month and one person who has been called more than once in a single year.

My point is I think the computer is being programmed to choose from a particular class, group or segment of our community, thereby creating hardships on a select few.

People like myself, who are willing and able to serve, are somehow being excluded. Although I enjoy my somewhat reluctant status as a nonjuror, I hope the system looks at itself to create a more equal selection of future jurors.

- Mike Rosin

Granada Hills

Nothing will be done as it will only cost the taxpayer additional dollars that they do not wish to throw away on a system that they feel is in chaos. People feel this system is in chaos because they do not go down and serve on jury duty. If they did they would see the problems as they really exist and might get involved at least in letter writing to try to change the system for the better.

Some months ago, the court system had a focus group meeting with lawyers, judges and recently impaneled jurors, and it came up with many great ideas on how to improve the system.

Some of the things discussed were treatment of the prospective jurors by all court staff, facilities, safety, security of jurors, lunch facilities and costs, jury selection procedures and last but not least, jury pay.

Having sat in on the juror pay portion, I believe we had a better idea than $40 a day. Our suggestion was to increase the mileage pay from 15 cents one way to the going government allowance and pay both ways.

Also, we suggested that jurors get paid no less than minimum wage, and if the trial goes beyond the time allotted by the judge for trial, then jurors be paid time and a half. But these wages are to be paid not by the system but rather by the lawyers, thereby forcing them to speed up their trials and eliminate a lot of their fooling around.

We felt that would then force the courts to take back control of the system, and you would now eliminate the six-month and longer trials that should be finished in four weeks.

- Jim Avery 

Burbank

There is an old saying that quality costs. Parties involved in a trial are well aware of this.

The jury formation process seems to have degenerated from pride in being selected into an exercise of jury duty evasion by some of the best minds that could be available. Could this in some way help explain some of the more unusual verdicts handed down?

- John F. Hand

Canoga Park