If you are so concerned about hijacking this thread and letting it get back to being about vehicross, then why respond? Strikes me as mighty convenient. "I shall now provide a three paragraph last word, but you should not reply because that would be dragging this out." The very strange part is that I agree with nearly every word of your first paragraph. What I don't understand is how you reconcile a perfectly rational recognition of the human frailties in our judges, lawyers, law enforcement officers etc, and simultaniously support granting them greater power, and removal of the protections built in to prevent abuses by just these people.

Why must there be only a choice between "disposed of" (nice euphemism) and "coddled"? That is a false dichotomy. Coddled in the cases of capital crimes means spending many years on death row while the judicial system follows the careful procedures of review required by our system.

And yes, your solution does indeed sound "harsh". The summary execution of all career criminals sounds a little more than just harsh. And whom do you grant the authority to decide which of them is the "worst of the worst"? Would it be the same flawed judges lawyers and police that are subject to all too human pressures that might have little to do with justice? Who decides, and how, which of those in our prisons have "no chance at redemption"?

Like I said, there are a lot of things I don't want my taxes spent on. Due process for our citizens, particularly those with the least ability or means to defend themselves, is not one I oppose.