Recently, Dr. Michael Shermer published an article about doping in cycling in his Skeptic blog. He utilizes the principles of the Omerta Rule and Nash Equilibrium in order to suggest an explanation for the behaviors of Floyd Landis and other professional cyclists in disobeying both law and cycling rules.
When an idea such as this surfaces, I can’t help but consider applications within my criminal law practice. In essence, it demonstrates the rationality of some bad conduct, rather than the irrationality that most presume must be inherent in such decisions.
Once again, I am reminded that most “criminals” are not blatantly so. Irrational? Perhaps. Reckless? Maybe. Hardened criminal minds? Hardly.
More to follow on this.