Just an FYI, if you are a percipient witness you get brought in as a witness regardless of your qualifications as an expert and are not entitled to expert fees.
IANA tax lawyer, but if it were me, I’d deduct the costs associated, such as parking, commuting, etc.
Personally, although it rots when you don’t get paid by your employer, stop to think what you’d want if you were on trial.
As a taxpayer, how much would you be willing to pay to the jurors? Remember, this comes out of YOUR local, state and federal income and property taxes.
It’s unlikely one person is going to be inconvenienced and/or out of money all that often.
As a taxpayer I would be willing to pay the going rate for the person rather than risk having the unwilling who might be prepared to cut short their deliberations and deny proper justice.
Why should individuals be made to pay personally when the state, which ultimately is comprised of its citizens who should bear the responsibility as a collective.
Either a nation is prepared to enable justice, or it is not.
If you would prefer it done on the cheap, just to save you a buck, maybe there is no point in having trials at all.
Good plan, unless you get audited…
Why should we pay jurors? It is not like we are required to do much in return for citizenship. Pay Taxes and serve on juries occasionally. What’s the big deal?
Hey, look at the bright side. You might get picked to serve on a jury for someone that had a burnt out headlight and wants to fight it in court.
Jury duty is involuntary servitude aka slavery, as such no payment is required, so be thankful they are providing you anything for your service. And yes I think you can get out of jury duty by claiming it violates the antislavery amendment.
ETA: Because this is GQ…
You are wrong. As wrong as the tax protesters.
…and the guys that tried to avoid the draft with this argument.
Because most of us have bills to pay and mouths to feed, and many, if not most, do not get jury pay from our employers for being unable to work when called for service. Some judges accept financial hardship at a lower threashold than others, but even if it does get you removed that’s removing an otherwise capable citizen from consideration.
The lack of adequate pay removes or burdens a large portion of the population who live at or close to a paycheck-to-paycheck level.
RE: what garygnu just said, some of you might be interested in this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=439026&page=1&pp=50&highlight=jury
Financial hardship is a very real issue for a number of potential jurors.
Look. The vast majority of trials last a few days at most. All judges will consider the potential length of trial. Judges are not going to bankrupt someone by forcing them to participate in a long trial.
I actually hate that companies or the state does not pay jurors because it leaves a jury pool of state and federal workers who do get paid while on jury, and retirees who no defense lawyer wants on a jury. By having an unpaid jury pool many potential good jurors are excluded. But the fact is that most people can in fact afford to miss two or three days from work. If not, and you explain to the judge that it is more than an inconvenience but that you will be evicted or have your car repossessed or not be able to eat HE OR SHE WILL EXCUSE YOU.
I found this out at work today (DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!)
I’m a teacher so I requested that my jury duty be postponed to winter break since my district does not pay when serving. The court apparently did not process the request (the first request for a postponement is automatically granted) so I got a notice ORDERING me to jury duty with no option to postpone or be on-call.
Now since I am legally obligated to report or risk arrest (order to show cause), my district will pay.
And where do you think this money to pay jurors is going to come from?
Taxes!
So yeah, you’d get paid to be on the jury, but you’d get make less in every paycheck to compensate for it.
In other words, in a perfect world where everyone pays taxes and everyone gets picked for jury duty, you’d basically be taking money from everyone (taxpayers) to turn around and give it back to everyone (taxpayers) - less the overhead and waste associated with a beaurocracy.
Yes but it is in everyones interest to ensure that the law is run fairly, therefore everyone should pay.
By not paying jurors, all you do is create a reason for people not to show up, I jusy can’t see how that can be compatible with justice.