And here is the solution to crime and to prison over population. Simply change the math.

Every criminal, regardless of the crime, jurisdiction, mitigating factors faces the same odds as everyone in one aspect of their legal journey.

Every third person to that stand in front of a judge (or anyone else serving in the capacity of a judge such as a magistrate, parole board, etc. ) in a criminal complaint receives a bullet to the brain as soon as the hearing is initiated. The mess in the court room is cleaned up and the next defendant is called into the room. If the criminal is not the third defendant then the trail process happens as normal.

Murder, child abuse, criminal neglect, using drugs, selling drugs, domestic violence, rape, beating your dog, speeding, running a stop light, shop lifting, credit card fraud, failure to pay parking at the meter, you name it: It wouldn't matter.

Unlike the speeding ticket I received in Illinois the ticket wouldn't allow me to enter a plea and pay a fine. Everyone goes to court for everything and every third person gets shot. Failure to appear for your court appointment just results in a bench warrant to have you shot - at work, or home, or while eating dinner at McDonalds for example. If you happen to bleed out and make a mess at the restaurant you and your family are responsible to pay for the clean up and loss of business during and after the cleanup phase.

Please carry a minimal amount of life insurance so that the costs do not impact you children's ability to go to college.

Sample opportunities to have the "1 in 3" process implemented include:

Grand Jury Hearings.
Arraignments.
Bail Hearings.
Hearings/Trials. In this case each day of a hearing and arguments in a trial would implement a "1 in 3" rule. A one day trial would result in one opportunity to be shot. A fifteen day trial would result in one opportunity to be shot each day for a total of fifteen days. The longer the prosecution and defense argue their case the more opportunities to implement the "1 in 3" rule. I suspect this may result in more "guilty" pleas.
Any and all Appeals Hearings/Trials. see the above note on opportunities for implementing the "1 in 3" rule.
Meetings with the defendants lawyers that include a judge involved in the case would result in the "1 in 3" rule being implemented even if the defendant is not present.
Criminal acts committed while in prison that the warden or another representative of the state presided in judgment of. If the prison convenes a committee to hear prison cases please see the parole board hearing description for the "1 in 3" rule process.
Requests for Clemency/Commuting a Sentence. Technically this is asking someone to act as a judge typically to change a verdict or sentence.
Parole Board hearings. This is a special case. In a typical parole board hearing there may be a panel of judges or appointees acting as officers of the court. Because there may be three or more judges in place during the meeting the opportunities to implement the "1 in 3" rule would be limited to the number of judges sitting on the parole board panel at that moment in time multiplied by .5 and rounded up to the nearest in the case that the resulting product was a decimal. Unfortunately the math in this situation does not appear to work in the criminal's favor at all.

In light of the current concerns of unjustified force being used by police officers and others I would like to clarify something. It is important to note that any cases where charges are filed and a trial takes place, an indictment is filed, or a grand jury is convened the "1 in 3" rule is implemented.

Now. You do the math. Would you want to speed on the way to work tomorrow morning?

It would take a couple years to sink in but if you change the odds the number of people committing criminal acts will decrease, either because the criminals were removed from the streets or because they actively chose to not commit a crime in the first place. There is a case to be made that the new process would create a smarter criminal and that there might be an increase in corruption and bribery in the legal system. We already deal with that and the remedy for both of these problems is inherent in the system. We can shoot them too.

I also have a way to solve the impending medicare crisis and am thinking about running for national office if anyone is interested in being my campaign manager.