A Jury Policy With Some Teeth : L.A. County change should result in better-balanced panels

Ducking jury service, a common practice in Los Angeles, just got tougher. Scofflaws who ignore the standard eligibility questionnaire will now receive a summons. Ignore that “invitation” and face a $1,500 fine. That’s a strong and appropriate punishment.

American citizens are rarely required to perform any civic duty for their country. Jury duty is one of the exceptions. However, the majority of those called in Los Angeles have not served because until now they faced no punishment.

Four million residents of Los Angeles are expected to receive juror summonses this year and fewer than half are expected to respond. That figure should become better as a result of the court’s new get-tough policy.

In Orange County, court officials say about 25% of those called to jury duty each year fail to respond. Although the no-shows can be fined $1,000 apiece, the county rarely tracks them down.

The new teeth in L.A. County’s policy will spread the burden of jury service and also make jury pools more representative. Most major corporations are willing to excuse their employees with pay for the 10 days of required duty. More employers should accept this important responsibility and pay their workers for performing this service instead of discouraging them or even helping them find ways to get out of jury duty.

Not everyone can afford to serve. Self-employed people, entrepreneurs and small proprietors and their workers who would lose pay are allowed to go to court and plead hardship. This is a reasonable excuse, but abuse of it can cause serious damage--denying Los Angeles County the representative juries that fairness and the law require.

The issue of representative juries was a subject of intense public debate after the verdicts in the Rodney King and O.J. Simpson cases. No doubt many of the people who complained that the Simpson jury--a predominantly black panel dominated by government employees--was not representative of Los Angeles were among those who had evaded jury service.

Nearly every qualified person who is called should serve. Few people can be expected, however, to serve in trials as long as the Simpson proceeding unless they work for the government or for companies that can afford to pay them while they are off work for months. The new system does not directly address this problem, but it will widen the pool of potential jurors, which should produce more citizens who can serve longer than the mandatory 10 days.

The need for jurors has increased in the aftermath of the state’s “three-strikes” law, which requires mandatory prison sentences of 25 years to life for offenders convicted of a third felony. The tough sentences have discouraged repeat offenders from accepting plea bargains, with the result that trial calendars are becoming overcrowded, in turn increasing the need for jurors. In Superior Court, criminal jury trials have increased 25%. That increase requires a much larger juror pool.

A heavy majority of Californians voted for “three strikes,” believing it would serve the common good. This same belief should prompt citizens to take on the responsibility of jury service. A duty that awaits more of us.