Another Milepost On The Road To Oblivion

What's your solution to the following growing problem in America?

In this time of double-digit unemployment and shrinking benefits for those who do have jobs, courts are finding it more difficult to seat juries for trials running more than a day or two. And in extreme cases, reluctance has escalated into rebellion, experts say.

After three days of mounting insurrection, lawyers for both the deputy and the sergeant waived their right to a jury trial and left the verdict up to Dunn.

"We can't have a disgruntled jury," said attorney Gregory W. Smith, who represents Deputy Robert Lyznick in the lawsuit against his former supervisor. He called the panel "scary" and too volatile for either side to trust.

Money woes inflicted by the recession have spurred more hardship claims, especially by those called for long cases, say jury consultants and courtroom administrators. More than a quarter of all qualified jurors were released on hardship grounds last year, according to court statistics. And judges say they have seen more people request such dismissals in the last year.

"There's a lot of tension, a lot more stress people are dealing with these days," said Gloria Gomez, director of juror services for the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

There are two solutions I can immediately come up with:

One, the problem is jurors should be paid a fair wage.  Companies should pay employees on jury duty. Perhaps a fund can be set up to do this at each company, accompanied by a tax cut to companies that participate so that they can cover the fund.  That's just off the top of my head.

Two, the problem is trials require juries.  We can save county, state, and federal dollars by doing away with jury trials altogether.  Trials should be heard by a panel of judges, like the Supreme Court.  These judges can be elected or appointed depending on law.  They should not serve lifetime appointments, however.  That's also just off the top of my head.

So which solution is more effective?  Which is more radical?  The most important trials in America are not decided by a trial of a person's peers, but by the nine Justices of the Supreme Court.  On the other hand, trial rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights, specifically the Sixth Amendment.  On the gripping hand, the Sixth Amendment doesn't apply to misdemeanors and petty crimes at all.

Solution one is definitely the one I'd classify as the "liberal" solution.  Two the "conservative" one.

Which one would you choose?