"GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY"

The jury system, our oldest and most treasured political heritage, is under fire. A prominent judge has recently made the following statement: "A jury in the average criminal case will give a fair verdict eight times out of ten. But it is different in civil cases involving money and business. In such cases, unless jurors can be found who have had business experience and are trained to weigh facts on their merits, the verdict is too apt to be in line with the small prejudices of small men". The average jury sitting on civil cases nowadays is little more than a farce. Perhaps two of the men will pay attention to the evidence and try to come to a fair conclusion on the facts of the case. The other ten either do not have intelligence enough to get outside their petty preconceptions, or they are so unconcerned about seeing justice done that they will vote either way in order to come to a speedy decision and be freed for more tasteful work.

All this is the outgrowth of a condition which disgraces popular government--the fact that the "bigger" men, those best qualified to judge cases involving business matters, are only to ready to shirk jury duty on the least excuse. Jury-dodging is one of the easiest things in the world; a plea if important business, physical weakness, or travel--excuses which the judge can scarcely question--are easy roads to freedom. But such evasion is sure to lead back to the slacker himself; if he refuses service himself, how can he expect a competent jury when his own case comes up for trial?

"Trial by one's peers" is a fundamental privilege of democracy but like all privileges, it has its corresponding duty. The duty that goes with the right to vote is tax-paying; with jury trial, goes the duty of serving on juries when called upon. If democracy is to succeed, it calls for co-operation and a sense of responsibility from every citizen. The burdens as well as the advantages must be shared.