THE AUTHORS ALSO REVIEW THE INEQUITIES OF THE JURY SYSTEM. THEY NOTE THAT SOME JURORS SERVE LONGER TERMS THAN OTHERS, THAT JURY FEES VARY WIDELY, AND THAT MANY JURORS ARE CALLED TO SERVE SEVERAL TIMES WHILE OTHER CITIZENS ARE NEVER CALLED. FIGURES ON MONETARY LOSSES OF JURORS ARE PROVIDED. THE AUTHORS SUGGEST THAT JURY SELECTION PROCEDURES BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW FOR GREATER REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR LIST AND FOR RANDOM SELECTION OF JURORS. ALTHOUGH RAISING JURY FEES TO AVOID ECONOMIC HARDSHIP IS SEEN AS A DESIRABLE ALTERNATIVE, BOTH SOCIALLY AND POLITICALLY, THE AUTHORS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MANY COURTS MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE ADDITIONAL COSTS. REDUCING THE JURY TERMS TO AVOID ECONOMIC HARDSHIP IS SEEN AS AN EFFECTIVE AND LESS DRASTIC REMEDY. HOWEVER, SINCE THERE IS LITTLE PRESSURE BY THE PUBLIC FOR SUCH A REFORM, THE AUTHORS ARGUE THAT THIS IS A STEP THAT THE COURTS MUST TAKE ON THEIR OWN AND FOR THEIR OWN GOOD. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)