Why not? You voted in the recent election. You believe in democracy. When the political parties called and asked you what you thought of the country, you said that crime was a major worry. You don't have a huge amount of confidence in the criminal justice system.

Here is your chance to have your say, to do your democratic duty.

Here is your chance to view the system up close, and develop an informed opinion on crime and how it is dealt with. Why is your hand still rooted in your pocket?

Last week, Catherine McGuinness, former supreme court judge and president of the Law Reform Commission (LRC) laid out what has been blindingly obvious for a long time. Juries are not representative of society at large.

"A jury is meant to reflect society as it were and it's very obvious that there's a huge number of people who either don't turn up or excuse themselves, " she said.

"You end up with a jury made up of a group of people which might be overly based on retired people, unemployed people and students perhaps.

There is a huge middle ground in society that is scarcely represented on juries."

Juries are the cornerstone of the criminal justice system.

Frequently, in charging a jury, the judge will inform them that their greatest tool is their common sense from their everyday lives. As a commodity, common sense varies across age, experience, occupation, socioeconomic background and family circumstances.

Without them, the system is entirely run by legal professionals, who don't represent a broad cross-section of society, and whose experience is largely garnered from inside the system. That is no substitute for somebody coming in fresh, relatively or completely new to the system, and bringing a bit of the outside world with them.

Crime . . . libel is the only civil area requiring a jury . . . is such a visceral subject that its processing demands nothing less.

At the moment, the range of citizens who make up juries is largely confined to the categories outlined by McGuinness. This affects the quality of opinion in a jury room, and by extension, the quality of criminal justice. As a result, society suffers greatest in the long run.

There is little incentive for citizens to do their duty. The act governing juries dates from 1976, which is another country, one where time wasn't so precious, and the individual's pre-eminence over the collective not as pronounced.

As things stand, most people from broad middle ground can get excused from serving. Those who are exempt include everybody from ships' masters, pilots, dentists, midwives, vets, nurses, priests, local authority employees, self employed, teachers, lecturers, to young parents. There is also specific provision for giving a "good reason" to the judge.

Between it all, unless you are an unemployed trapeze artist, there is every chance you can avoid service.

The LRC intends to propose changes to the Juries Act. Categories of exemption, the level of penalties and expenses, and even the provision of compensation, should be considered.

Quite possibly, a progressive chap such as the current minister for justice, Brian Lenihan, might attempt to overhaul the system.

Then, the lobbying will start.

Voices representing all the interest groups in the broad rump of middle Ireland will make appropriate noises to stop hassling their constituencies. The government will retreat under fire and revert to type, bringing in legislation that is so watered down it won't really change anything.

People will still bitch about crime. They will still point accusing fingers at the system. But when the summons arrives at their door, they will insist that their lives not be disrupted for a week or two in order to ensure that the democratic arm of the system be properly constituted to reflect society at large. Without serious resolve on the part of government, the jury system will head further down the cul de sac on which it is already embarked. Take your hand out of your pocket. You got something that belongs to us.