Thus, the best option for both suspects is to remain silent and not testify against the other. However, if both remain silent, due to a lack of evidence, the police will have to sentence both to a much lesser period. On the other hand, if both confess and accuse the other to be a culprit, they’ll share the sentence of imprisonment, that will be lesser than the full term.
If one confesses and the other remains silent, he (who remained silent) will have to serve the full tenure of punishment. They have two options―to confess or remain silent. Both are rational, and value their personal freedom more than the other’s. To convict them, the police need testimony from at least one of them. They are questioned by the police in separate rooms.
Two men are arrested by the police on suspicion of committing the same crime. Let’s take a brief look at the traditional example that propounds this concept. He developed the game theory after being inspired by the ‘bluffing technique’ in poker. ‘The prisoner’s dilemma’ is a byproduct of the ‘game theory’ developed by noted scientist John von Neumann.
