Final answer:
The correct answer to the original sentencing question is not included in the details provided. The Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that juveniles cannot receive mandatory life sentences without parole. The scenario with Jane and Bill illustrates the prisoner's dilemma, showing that the optimal strategy for each depends on the actions they believe the other will take.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question refers to modifications in sentencing where a judge might reduce a no-parole sentence based on the inmate's display of remorse. However, the correct answer to this specific question is not provided in the details given. In general, the law can allow for the reduction of sentences under certain circumstances, but details vary widely by jurisdiction and case specifics.
In the context of the Supreme Court and the death penalty, according to the landmark decision in Miller v. Alabama, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole may not be a mandatory sentence for juvenile offenders. This reflects the Court's consideration of the Eighth Amendment concerning cruel and unusual punishment and its application to minors.
The scenario involving Jane and Bill is a classic example of the prisoner's dilemma, where each participant must decide whether to cooperate with the other or act in their own interest. Based on the outcomes listed, if both suspects believe the other will remain silent, they should stay silent to minimize their sentences. However, if one suspects the other will confess, they may be compelled to do the same to avoid the longest sentence. The scenario suggests that there is no dominant strategy that is always the best for either Jane or Bill, as the best action depends on what they believe the other will do.