Jury Duty - Is It Worse Than Working At McDonald's?

Those who serve on the jury are compensated for their time, but is it enough?  For some, jury service is a necessary evil that gets them a day or two off of work.  For others, jury duty can be devastating, taking them away from their only source of income.  This becomes even more of a problem for trials that take up multiple weeks or months.  A jury should consist of people from all walks of life.  The diversity of a jury is essential to obtaining fair and just results, but the effects of service vary from person to person and for some, the effects are a financial nightmare.

In Boston, jurors are paid $40 for a seven-hour day, around $23 less than Massachusets' minimum wage.  as compared to the average worker, a juror loses around $128 for each day of service.  Some states require employers to pay employees $50 for up to three days of jury service.  However, some states only pay $4 per day of service.  While the information in the article may be old, the message rings true.  Serving on a jury is worse than working a full day at McDonald's.

It is no secret that the general perception about jury service tends to lean toward negative.  Part of that reason is because low-income workers simply cannot afford to miss work.  Not all employers compensate employees who must miss work for jury duty.  Because of this, employees risk losing a significant amount of income due to their service.  Even multiple-day trials can put a low-income juror at risk financially.  The risk grows exponentially the longer the trial lasts.  A multi-week or multi-month trial can ruin a low-income juror, causing them to lose much more than their wage.

For a civil service, this is simply unacceptable.  Measures must be taken to prevent jurors from suffering such a huge loss.  Some states have introduced a lengthy trial fund to alleviate some of the hardship for trials that are projected to last a long period of time.  The courts in these states use court fees to generate revenue for the fund and are able to provide their jurors between $200 and $300 after a certain length of time.

The adoption of these sorts of practices would allow for a more inclusive jury.  The hardships that are faced by many jurors would essentially be eliminated.  A diverse jury serves to our benefit.  Providing adequate compensation would allow low-income citizens to serve on a jury, rather than avoid service because it would ruin them financially.  Similarly, those who would not be as financially burdened will recognize the fair rates and show up for service when called knowing they will be making an impact with little detriment to themselves.  Those who serve on a jury are performing a civil service.  We owe it to them to show just how important that service is by adequately compensating them for the sacrifice they are making.  Ultimately, juror pay may lead to a more diverse and beneficial jury.