I sure don’t trust the police to do that.
Well, you could say that you don’t trust the police *today* to do this. In truth, going way back, there was a red line for police, a solid, thick red line that worked in two ways.
The first part was that when a criminal crossed that line, the *emphasis* changed from capture to kill. But it was never set in concrete. If they caught somebody they would otherwise kill, who surrendered without resistance, that could very well save their life.
Otherwise, they were treated like John Dillinger or Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow, and now great and risky effort was made to capture them alive.
The other part, equally important, was in the law. This was the rule that anyone who killed a police officer faced a swift and sure death penalty execution.
The criminals, knowing this, also knew that one way or another, if they attacked a cop and killed him, they were dead men. It didn’t matter if it was on the street or in the electric chair. Arrest and trial were a formality.
Importantly, in one form or another, this red line still exists today. However, if it is invoked, it is done discreetly. The emphasis today is on “over-arrresting”, intentionally sweeping up individuals with no real evidence other than association with criminals, and railroading them into prison for very long terms.
Instead of killing them outright, they arrest family members, take away minor children, etc.
However, they are always just a hair’s breadth away from killing violent criminals, if the opportunity presents itself.
So, in the final analysis, what I am suggesting is not that radical, that the police administer some lethal street justice just to the worst of the worst, and save everybody sorrow and expense in the process.