Originally Posted by
Bob21
Mission, a couple more points about this case since I’ve now probably read this article at least 15 times. Each time, I pick up something new I didn’t see the last time.
First, the writer says they were given the “Prisoner’s Dilemma”, meaning the option to testify against each other for a reduced sentence. When you read the offer both were given, this was no “prisoner’s dilemma”. Any lawyer would have advised them not to take this offer. If one of them would have taken it, they would have had to admitt guilt and had a criminal record, even though they wouldn’t have spent any time in jail. Most people wouldn’t have taken this offer, since they did nothing wrong, or at least nothing the courts would see as wrong. Them not taking this offer had nothing to do with either one carrying about the other person. This was not a “Prisoner’s Dilemma.”