Final answer:
Jane and Bill are faced with a prisoner's dilemma during their bank robbery interrogation, where their dominant strategy would be to confess, regardless of the other's actions, to minimize their potential sentence.
Step-by-step explanation:
When considering the choices available to Jane and Bill, both have been given a classic prisoner's dilemma. This dilemma explores the outcomes of cooperative versus self-interested behavior in a scenario where both are suspected of bank robbery and are being interrogated separately by the police.
If Jane trusts Bill to stay silent, she should also stay silent, leading to a shorter 20-year sentence for both. However, if Jane believes Bill will confess, her best response would be to also confess, minimizing her potential sentence to 30 years instead of 35. This scenario indicates that both Jane and Bill have a dominant strategy: to confess. This strategy provides the best outcome for each, regardless of the other's decision.
It is essential to understand that in legal dilemmas, individual incentives can often lead to suboptimal outcomes for all involved parties, highlighting the complexity of strategic decision-making in law enforcement and legal settings.