Jury selection would be run as a lottery, with the winners selected to serve jury duty. This would be a no entry fee lottery, targeting the retired and unemployed. Winners would be awarded a seat on a jury and a daily stipend.

For the retired, this would represent an opportunity to socialize, earn a little extra cash and make good use of one’s lifetime of experience. For the unemployed (largely represented by those on welfare), this would provide desperately needed income in the form of a paying job that wasn’t too strenuous or demanding.

With a jury predominantly made up of the lower socio-economic classes, white-collar crime would never be the same.
-- nuclear hobo, Mar 24 2007

I likes.

But you'll have to do better than $0.50 per mile for travel expenses, because even when unemployed, that is a hardship.
-- ye_river_xiv, Mar 24 2007


Just a fun fact for you: juries ARE made up of the lower socio-economic classes. People with lots of education get weeded out by lawyers on both sides. In America, you don't even need a reason why they're biased or anything. You just get to axe 3 jurors, any ones you want. And whichever side knows they are fighting an uphill battle is going to eliminate the people who actually would understand the technical details of why this is true the best.
-- Smurfsahoy, Mar 24 2007


Or you could have a "Lottery Jury" where the winner of a lottery fronts with the winning ticket then a random group of people decide on whether they deserve to take the prize or not.
-- the dog's breakfast, Mar 25 2007


//Or you could have a "Lottery Jury" where the winner of a lottery fronts with the winning ticket then a random group of people decide on whether they deserve to take the prize or not.// What's the incentive to serve on the jury that decides whether the jury winner gets his prize? Ad infinitum...
-- Smurfsahoy, Mar 25 2007



random, halfbakery