Although the strategy for these games seems very predictable, there is a paradox that arises. The police are also a player in this game. T

he police have evidence to put these criminals away for only X years but if the prisoners confess, then they have enough evidence to put them away for slightly more than X years. In this situation, the police want to do all they can in their power to make these criminals confess to the crime. The actions by the authorities have to be included in the outcome of the game. The way the authorities can change the outcome of the game is to penalize the prisoners if they do not do what the authorities want. Therefore the only two actions that the authority can perform are to penalize or not penalize the prisoners. However, the dominant strategy of the authority and the impact of their actions are determined by two more stipulations.

This circumstance of including the police in the game seems easily predictable and gives us the impression that the authority does not affect the game significantly. However, if we change the nature of the police, the game is altered greatly. If the police have a non-benevolent attitude, then they are no longer concerned about the status of the prisoners, rather they are concerned about the well-being of the public. In this case, the police may impose a penalty on the prisoners even if they do confess because they will be a

Some common words found in the essay are:
Prisoner's Dilemma, , dominant strategy, prisoners confess, penalize prisoners, prisoners dominant, prisoners dominant strategy, prisoners prisoners, strategy prisoners confess, dominant strategy confessing, benevolent benefit gains, benevolent benefit, actions authority, strategy prisoners, police evidence, outcome game, benefit gains prisoners,
Approximate Word count = 851
Approximate Pages = 3 (250 words per page double spaced)