I appreciate the problem but I would like to hear discussion about the composition of an ideal jury. The article mentions the right of someone to be judged by a "cross section of the community" and elsewhere a "jury of peers". These two may well be contradictory. If I am to insist on a jury of my peers I want 12 old retired men - hardly a community cross section. I think the prescription needs to be for 12 (or whatever number) people who are intelligent, open minded, and of personalities suitable for consensual decision making processes. Why do we want to have a composition that closely reflects the makeup of our heterogeneous society?
Fencepost.

When I've considered this issue the treatment of jurors seems like a significant factor. Few of us enjoy being treated like second class citizens. My experience as a juror and tales related by collegues leaves a strong impression that the courts are so full of themselves that it is a common experience to feel poorly treated. In my own case my employer pays the normal wage to employee's on jury service and collects the pittance payed by the jury system.

Professionals are used to being treated with a level of courtesy when rendering a service, the jury system seems to go out of it's way to emphasise the low status of the juror.

If we want more enthusasiam for jury service then we should move on from some out of date notions about the treatment of people and treat jurors (and prospective jurors) with the respect that the role deserves.

R0bert

I think Michael should give some consideration to the deceptive conduct of the so called judges in the Civil hearings in which a party is entitled to have a properly constituted court established to uphold his rights. Who would Michael consider an appropriate person to sit on a jury prosecuting one of the members of the Judicial club who has falsely pretended to sit as a judge in a civil hearing when in fact he sat as an individual and fraudulently claimed jurisdiction without the knowledge or consent of the loosing party to the hearing.

I worked as a court officer for six years, dealing with jurors and juries on a constant basis. I see that there are problems 'around the edges' with the jury system, but nothing that could not be fixed with some thought.

Firstly jury pay: this use to not be such a problem, as many employment awards required employers to top up jury payments, but now with 'Work Choices' this requirement is going. Society as a whole, including government, citizens and corporations, should see the benefit of the jury system and support it. Juries should be reimbursed in a better fashion, but still many people accept the fact that jury service is a duty of a citizen. We don't ask our citizens to do much in response to our relative freedom. Some inconvenience for a fairly short period of time isn't too much to ask.

Trials have grown longer; the article's author mentioned 8 weeks as a long trial. While many trials last for just a few days, there have been trials of complex matters that have been listed for 26 weeks. This is a phenomenal length of time, but one that is required by the legal system requiring the crown to go to extraordinary lengths to make its case. In my experience the average murder trial ran for around four to six weeks.

Some judges are better at working with juries than others. This is a sad fact. There are judges whom juries have expressed admiration for, in the way that they explain the law, the consideration given to jurors where there have been delays in the middle of trials, and even just the respect shown to them and their intelligence. Other judges, whilst having a magnificent grasp of the law, have a difficulty in communication and rapport with juries. Responsible jurors, who are willing to use some intelligence and ask questions, can overcome some of these difficulties. Perhaps judges could receive better training as well.

Ultimately it comes down to how we see ourselves as citizens: whether we are just along for the ride, or want to contribute.

I have never done jury service because when I was called up I was working in an exempt profession, however can I comment on my meeting with a young woman who was on a jury for a very long trial. This single woman was self employed. By the end of the trial her partner had left, the mortgage payments had fallen behind, her clients had got sick of waiting and she had to restart her life and her business.

I am very sceptical of the ability of courts to try complex white collar crime, I think the technicalities are beyond the interest and expertise of the legal profession who take to attacking the hapless expert witnesses who are foolish enough to make themselves available to the court.

Yep Billie, I think the legal system in Australia has lost its way. It cant seem to represent those who require the representation the most ... be it courts or tribunals and it is sad the amount that is spent on those who can already afford it.

Given Justice is the first principal of Sustainable Development, I feel Australia is kidding itself until it ever attempts to redress these fundemental issues. Apathy unfortunately breeds more apathy. Bystanders will remain bystanders while there is no safe guard to reflect the value of addressing crime. It is the courts themselves who need to set the example of crime prevention by showing us we are all equal under common law.

Finally, it is the lack of access to the law that is having an inpact on society as a whole. Our culture is based on Fair Go, yet much of what we fought for (previous generations) is being lost by an imbalance of power, be it through service or government generally.

I do hope things improve.

.