Game theory is an interesting branch of mathematics with links across a large number of Fields, psychology, statistics, bioligy, econonimcs. The most promienent being its use in the field of psychology. The Prisoners Dilemma is an interesting example of game theory i was subjected to in economics, and as i analyzed the Dilemma, i found these links surface themselves in multiple times in my everday life. To start, The Prisoners Dilemma is an example of a game analyzed in theory that shows why two purely "rational" individuals might not cooperate. even though it appears that it is in their best interests to do so, an example of which is presented as follows: Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary …show more content…
So, i asked myself, what would the optimum strategy be for prisoner A? In the example, it is in his clear interest to testify, because because whichever strategy his partner chooses this gives prisoner A the best possible outcome. Looking at it in reverse, if prisoner B testifies, then prisoner A would have been best testifying (gets 5 years rather than 10). If prisoner B remains silent, then prisoner A would have been best testifying (goes free rather than 6 months). This brings forth an interesting dilemma. even if the Prisoner A and his partner are both innocent. Yet they are placed in a similar situation with similar outcomes. Where it is in the best interest to testify against their partner. This ultimately leads to and increase in the probabality that and innocent person will go to jail. As we can see this in the court systems of America where plea bargaining, is a common tactic used to convict a
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
Whitley, Kyles was tried for murder, convicted and sentenced to death. However, upon review of his case, it was discovered that the prosecution had failed to give evidence about a witness, a man named “Beanie”, and several other pieces of material evidence. Since these were not given to the defense and the evidence was significant, he was given a new trial (United states v., 1976). What separates this case from the others is the fact that the evidence suppressed was witness testimony and the witness’ background and prior statements. The testimony of “Beanie” in this case was important, as it had “significant inconsistencies and affirmatively self-incriminating assertions (Kyles v. whitley, 1995)”. Because this information and prior testimony relevant to the case weren’t released, the conviction was overturned. This is relevant to the dilemma because one of the areas that had importance to the defense was that the witness wasn’t consistent in their testimony and that led to issues with their effectiveness as a witness. Referring back to the dilemma and the officer’s conduct, the officer wasn’t consistent in their testimony, namely that they denied wrongdoing and later confessed. This shows that the officer is an inconsistent witness and that if this is discovered, and the prosecution must disclose that information, he can be impeached as a witness. This will mean that he is not as effective in the criminal justice
Sentence bargaining sometimes occurs in high profile cases where the prosecutor does not want to reduce the charges against the defendant, usually for fear of how the newspapers will react. A sentence bargain may allow the prosecutor to obtain a conviction to the most serious charge, while assuring the defendant of an a...
The Lords of War Simulation is best described by the neo-liberalist theory. Neo-liberalism best describes this game because it supports the ideology that everything humans do is in their own self interest. The theory also believes that people only cooperate with each other out of fear; actions of people playing Lords of War validate this theory. To succeed, neo-liberals need cooperation, institutions to mediate, as well as a fear of being defected on. Neo- liberals do not feel that humans are good in nature, but will argue that they have the capacity to bond together for the greater good, for their own personal benefit.
Prison gangs are originally formed by inmates as a way of protecting themselves from the other inmates. These gangs have turned out to be violent and thus posing a threat to security. This paper will have a look at the different gangs in prisons, their history, beliefs and missions, and the differences and similarities in these gangs.
When put into the position of complete authority over others people will show their true colors. I think that most people would like to think that they would be fair, ethical superiors. I know I would, but learning about the Stanford Prison Experiment has made me question what would really happen if I was there. Would I be the submissive prisoner, the sadistic guard, or would I stay true to myself? As Phillip Zimbardo gave the guards their whistles and billy clubs they drastically changed without even realizing it. In order to further understand the Stanford Prison experiment I learned how the experiment was conducted, thought about the ethical quality of this experiment, and why I think it panned out how it did.
One could wonder why plea bargains are even made. One reason would be that criminal courts are becoming clogged and overcrowded. Going through the proper procedure and processes that we are granted takes time. Trials can take anywhere from days to...
In Stephen Chapman’s essay, “The Prisoner’s Dilemma”, he questions whether the Western world’s idea of punishment for criminals is as humane as its citizens would like to believe or would Westerners be better off adopting the Eastern Islamic laws for crime and punishment. The author believes that the current prison systems in the Western world are not working for many reasons and introduces the idea of following the Koranic laws. Chapman’s “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” is persuasive because of his supporting evidence on the negative inhumane impact from the Western form of criminal punishment and his strong influential testament to the actions used by Eastern Islamic societies for crimes committed.
My observations were that both the prosecutor and defence had a certain sentence in mind, which they would present to the court, and the judge would deliberate over which lawyer he should listen to. However, I was surprised to see the amount of back and forth that went on between everyone. These events relate to the writings of Blumberg where he states, “However, lawyers… have close and continuing relations with the prosecuting office and the court itself through discreet relations” (Abraham, 1997: 20). During one case in plea court, one of the prosecutor stated that the defence and her had already agreed to a sentence. It seems that the backdoor negotiations that Abraham wrote about are true. The reason this is important is because it displays to the common folk that the legal system is not as cut and dry as it seems. It shows that a person’s fate may be determined based on the debating skills of a person’s lawyer, rather than our legal codes. Furthermore, using the term “game” to describe how a portion of our legal system is conducted would belie the beliefs of many on how justice is dealt in our country. When people think of lawyers and court they imagine people fighting for the rights of people, that the innocent are protected and the guilty are punished. The haggling nature of backdoor negotiation on what sort of sentence will be handed out sort of cheapen the image people have of
... court, there are only two choices for their fate: confess to a false crime and spend time in jail for it, or don't confess and face either torture until you confess or your execution. It is a lose lose situation. This is true for every person who is tried in front of the court. People became fearful of this and they could do nothing but accuse everyone they can in order to prevent accusation of themselves.
The statement "It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" summarises and highlights the mistakes and injustices in the criminal justice system. In a just society, the innocent would never be charged, nor convicted, and the guilty would always be caught and punished. Unfortunately, it seems this would be impossible to achieve due to the society in which we live. Therefore, miscarriages of justice occur in the criminal justice system more frequently than is publicised or known to the public at large. They are routine and would have to be considered as a serious problem in our society. The law is what most people respect and abide by, if society cannot trust the law that governs them, then there will be serious consequences including the possible breakdown of that society. In order to have a fair and just society, miscarriages of justice must not only become exceptional but ideally cease to occur altogether.
A judge has the ability to choose to alter their decision for sentencing based on their respective state’s truth in sentencing program. Depending on the crime and the offender, a judge may decide to mandate the offender to a longer than average sentence. The judge may change the offender’s base sentence. It may be reduced to match a sentence that is similar to a non-truth in sentencing punishment. He or she knows the offender will only serve about eighty-five percent of the sentence before they are eligible for parole or released. By minimizing the sentence, the eighty-five percent served would resemble a sentence that allowed for early release (Chen, 2001, page ii). However, the judge may form a bias of the individual and use this power to order them to a greater amount of time in order to punish the person. An individual who commits a crime, especially a violent crime, would serve almost double the average sentence served (Ditton and Wilson, 1999, pages 7-8). It would also force individuals, who commit less severe crimes to serve longer sentences since they are serving the majority of their sentence. A bias of the offender, which can be based on any extralegal factor, may lead to an injustice sentence and truth in sentencing would not allow them to be released early. There are also innocent people within the criminal justice system that may be falsely convicted.
Fleisher, M. S., & Decker, S. H. (2001). An Overview of the Challenge of Prison Gangs. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(1), 1.
Capital punishment has been in effect since the 1600's (Cole 451). However, in 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment, which was unconstitutional according to the Eighth amendment. It was public opinion that the current methods of execution, hanging, electrocution, and facing a firing squad, were too slow and painful upon the person to be executed (Cole 451). The U.S. Supreme Court reversed this decision when a "cleaner" way to bring about death was found in 1976. This "cleaner" way is death by lethal injection, which is quick and painless if administered right (Cole 450). Since capital punishment has been reinstituted many people have argued for and against capital punishment. Some say the death penalty is what the criminal deserves while others object to it because death is irreversible. I feel the death penalty is a good form of justice because only about 250 people a year get the death penalty and they are guilty beyond a doubt and don't deserve living with the possibility of parole. The sentencing judge or jury are ordered by the Supreme Court to look for "specific aggravating and mitigating factors in deciding which convicted murderers should be sentenced to death" (Cole 451). Some of these mitigating factors are the defendant's motivation, character, personal history, and most of all remorse (Costanzo).
We have been taught that we should always follow our priorities, whether it is dealing with jobs, families, education, or faith. Ethical egoism teaches us that if our interests are any one these or something else, we should put it first because these are our values. But how far should we go in protecting our values? Is there a limit of how they should be protected? Am I doing what’s best for my priorities or for me? Although we should protect our values, there needs to be a limit and a focus of how I should protect my values with the best intentions. The film, Prisoners, presents this moral dilemma of torture through the characters’ decisions and emotions.