The Prisoner's Dilemma

[jw5]

From Wiki:

A classic example of the prisoner's dilemma (PD) is presented as follows:

Two men are arrested, but the police do not possess enough information for a conviction. Following the separation of the two men, the police offer both a similar deal—if one testifies against his partner (defects/betrays), and the other remains silent (cooperates/assists), the betrayer goes free and the cooperator receives the full one-year sentence. If both remain silent, both are sentenced to only one month in jail for a minor charge. If each 'rats out' the other, each receives a three-month sentence. Each prisoner must choose either to betray or remain silent; the decision of each is kept quiet. What should they do?
If it is supposed here that each player is only concerned with lessening his time in jail, the game becomes a non-zero sum game where the two players may either assist or betray the other. In the game, the sole worry of the prisoners seems to be increasing his own reward. The interesting symmetry of this problem is that the logical decision leads each to betray the other, even though their individual ‘prize’ would be greater if they cooperated.

In the regular version of this game, collaboration is dominated by betrayal, and as a result, the only possible outcome of the game is for both prisoners to betray the other. Regardless of what the other prisoner chooses, one will always gain a greater payoff by betraying the other. Because betrayal is always more beneficial than cooperation, all objective prisoners would seemingly betray the other.

 

[jw5]

Wonder if this had anything to do with a couple of the chaps pleading guilty.
Or did they plead guilty because they were really sorry for their acts.
The pimp and the pros would certainly have plenty to say, and they wouldn't be shy to say it, given their own predicament.

The prisoner's dilemma is often seen in the reality show Survivor as well.
More often than not, the players prefer to maintain status quo rather than rock the boat and take a big risk.
Probably happens a lot in life too, and not just for prisoners or people charged with crimes.

 

[scroobal]

The Prisoner's Dilemma is for academic world and for TV shows. In real life. they place the accused person in separate rooms. After an hour in isolation, accused A is told that Accused B has implicated him and exonerated himself(accused B). The same storyline is played on accused B. The one who is less culpable will immediately sing out his exact role as he knows that his actions carries less consequence in terms of punishment and has no desire to carry the can for the more culpable accused.

The authorities then do not offer anyone with any deals and charge both of them and their roles are spelt out clearly.

Deals are offered in the US where they have so many cases by the hour and not time to investigate properly. Their courts are also packed and the jails are overflowing. There is so much push to cut a deal to save the courts time and jail accommodation. It therefore appears as a constant theme on US TV.

Cutting such deals are seldom done elsehwere.

 

[Narong Wongwan]

Deal cutting for criminals do happen in Sinkieland though not in black and white like the US.
There is no confirmed immunity.
The Yong drug case is one recent example.
And another is the orchard tower murders where the angmo accomplices of killer McCrea were let off.

 

[Jah_rastafar_I]

Deal cutting for criminals do happen in Sinkieland though not in black and white like the US.
There is no confirmed immunity.
The Yong drug case is one recent example.
And another is the orchard tower murders where the angmo accomplices of killer McCrea were let off.

They were let off cause they were ang moh?

 

[scroobal]

I am familiar with both cases, what was the deals cut?

Deal cutting for criminals do happen in Sinkieland though not in black and white like the US.
There is no confirmed immunity.
The Yong drug case is one recent example.
And another is the orchard tower murders where the angmo accomplices of killer McCrea were let off.

 

[besotted]

I am familiar with both cases, what was the deals cut?

Scroobal, what deal did you cut with Shanmugam that Tuesday

BTW it was a nice touch of the officer to give you an umbrella for the rain

 

[Ramseth]

Reminds me of my old police days. We always did that when there were abettors or partners in crimebut not in such matheically precise equation of course. In plea bargaining we could only promise the charge as per bargained for and explain the possible sentence range. The judge would still be the one deciding the sentence.

 

[sirus]

"Boa Toh" is the word in Singapore Prison, be it red, yellow, brown, black or white.

 

[Ramseth]

"Boa Toh" is the word in Singapore Prison, be it red, yellow, brown, black or white.

This happens with police forces all around the world. In Singapore, we got things easier because Singapore is small, very hard to run unless very resourceful and well backed. That's why see big cases like 5 or 6 housebreakers, only 1 or 2 arrested at scene, all arrested a few days later, or 5 or 6 rioters, only 1 or 2 arrested at scene, all arrested a few days later. In big countries, the crux is to get out of the scene without being caught redhanded, then take a bus to another state or province to lay low until other big cases come along and the police wind against you blows over. Then you can decide whether you want to stay put or sneak back quietly.

 

[eErotica69]

In Mathemathcs, it is called Game Theory.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory



Game theory is a method of studying strategic decision making. More formally, it is "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers."[1] An alternative term suggested "as a more descriptive name for the discipline" is interactive decision theory.[2] Game theory is mainly used in economics, political science, and psychology, as well as logic and biology. The subject first addressed zero-sum games, such that one person's gains exactly equal net losses of the other participant(s). Today, however, game theory applies to a wide range of class relations, and has developed into an umbrella term for the logical side of science, to include both human and non-humans, like computers. Classic uses include a sense of balance in numerous games, where each person has found or developed a tactic that cannot successfully better his results, given the other approach.

Modern game theory began with the idea regarding the existence of mixed-strategy equilibria in two-person zero-sum games and its proof by John von Neumann. Von Neumann's original proof used Brouwer's fixed-point theorem on continuous mappings into compact convex sets, which became a standard method in game theory and mathematical economics. His paper was followed by his 1944 book Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, with Oskar Morgenstern, which considered cooperative games of several players. The second edition of this book provided an axiomatic theory of expected utility, which allowed mathematical statisticians and economists to treat decision-making under uncertainty.

This theory was developed extensively in the 1950s by many scholars. Game theory was later explicitly applied to biology in the 1970s, although similar developments go back at least as far as the 1930s. Game theory has been widely recognized as an important tool in many fields. Eight game-theorists have won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, and John Maynard Smith was awarded the Crafoord Prize for his application of game theory to biology.

 

[jw5]

The Prisoner's Dilemma in its original form is about a convict and his accomplice.
What has the accomplice revealed? Has he ratted you out?

Another form could be as simple as this.
Your wife asks you where you were the night before.
You ask yourself "How much does she know?"
If you admit to everything upfront, you may get away with a slobbering apology.
If you deny everything and she already knows, she may get more angry.
You might get away with it if you deny everything and she knows nothing.

But remember, you are only a prisoner if she has a hold over you.
If you don't give a shit what she thinks or knows, there is no dilemma.

 

[Debonerman]

Poodles have no problems with conscience.................

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_kLdO3EsECs?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Ramseth]

But remember, you are only a prisoner if she has a hold over you.
If you don't give a shit what she thinks or knows, there is no dilemma.

Yes frankly, I've been to police station a few times before, not as police officer but as suspect, here and abroad. The trick is deny everything staunchly and adamantly, but courteously in co-operation. Police need to play that dilemma and sell-out trick because they don't have sufficient evidence. Otherwise, they needn't talk to much and tomorrow morning send you to court and by afternoon, you'd be in prison. I've been in their shoes before. Even if your partner sells you out, all you need for for defence is to claim your alleged partner is defending himself with fabricated tales bargained with police. Can police produce hard incontroversible evidence? Of course not, otherwise they won't resort to this trick. But frankly again, this dilemma trick always works well in Singapore and both or all accuseds got some discounts on sentencing and all are happy.

 

[jw5]

Yes frankly, I've been to police station a few times before, not as police officer but as suspect, here and abroad. The trick is deny everything staunchly and adamantly, but courteously in co-operation.

I recall your story about you and another guy who got into a fight and both denied to the police there was a fight and both got away with a warning.

Unfortunately, this will only work where the misdemeanour or altercation is of a minor nature or where the other party also has the incentive to deny.

 

[Ramseth]

I recall your story about you and another guy who got into a fight and both denied to the police there was a fight and both got away with a warning.

Unfortunately, this will only work where the misdemeanour or altercation is of a minor nature or where the other party also has the incentive to deny.

Yes, misdemeanor or minor criminal or routine miscellaneous cases. Not applicable to life imprison or death sentence cases. Those involve all the way up to A-G directly, not just formality. No more incentive to bargain unless one can be promised of reduced charge below life imprisonment or death sentence for a future.