Isaac Cates The Prisoners' Dilemma It's like the Prisoners' Dilemma: caught
together, questioned separately, two accomplices
have one faint chance to set the cops on their ears.
There is no evidence. Without a confession,
there's nothing concrete on either. The cops thus offer
A———, if she gives up B———, takes advantage of her
too-trusting partner, a low-security cot
for, say, two measly years; on her confession
B——— gets twenty. Meanwhile, her accomplice
gets the same deal poured like strychnine in his ears:
inform on her, gain maybe eighteen years.
Should both the suspects take the D.A.'s offer,
both get ten; yet if neither accomplice
turns rat, if both trust in trust, they both go scot-
free. Yes, that would be best. Must A———'s confession
admit it can't trust B——— not to confess in
his tense isolation, although his willing ears
received her whispers on the night they were caught
like conch-lips catching on the ocean's offer?
Honor among thieves? Believe, my dear accomplice,
what just a little trust here could accomplish:
our confidence-games turning to confession,
admission. We each suspect the other suffers
certain suspicions. At night, at times, our ears
have been burning. Must we be wrought up, caught
like truants' ears, pinched by the cops, or caught
referring to each other as accomplices
before we hear our own confessions?