Strategic thinking is a fine tool for analyzing business, legal, social, entertainment, and some military matters. But when push comes to shove, would I stake my life on game theory? Would I stake my family’s life on it?

One must be careful when applying theory. Models try to capture reality, but they always have limitations that can lead to impractical suggestions.

When the stakes are high, a good strategic decision can backfire at extreme cost. That is perhaps the lesson from the harrowing tale of the famous Getty kidnapping.

.

.

"All will be well if you use your mind for your decisions, and mind only your decisions." Since 2007, I have devoted my life to sharing the joy of game theory and mathematics. MindYourDecisions now has over 1,000 free articles with no ads thanks to community support! Help out and get early access to posts with a pledge on Patreon. .

.



Game theory of kidnapping

The kidnapping game is commonly taught model of an extensive form game that can be solved using backwards induction.

The simple model above implies that it is best not to negotiate with kidnappers. As the excellent textbook Game Theory Evolving states:

It is a great puzzle as to why people are often willing to pay ransom to save their kidnapped loved ones. The problem is that the kidnappers are obviously not honorable people who can be relied upon to keep their promises.

The issue is one of commitment. You only want to pay the ransom if you trust the kidnappers are trustworthy to spare the loved one. But clearly the kidnappers are not trustworthy as they have shown they operate outside the law.

Now to be fair, the text does analyze the model in a more nuanced way. The point is made that the model can be inaccurate because some ransoms are paid successfully. A possible explanation is if the kidnappers are vindictive, or the parents could never forgive themselves (they incur a cost to not paying), then it makes sense to pay the ransom.

But overall, the point is fair that one should be careful about paying ransom.

What happens when you test the theory?

The reality of kidnapping

In 1973, John Paul Getty III was kidnapped in Italy. His grandfather, John Paul Getty, was perhaps the richest man in the world at the time, earning his fortune in oil.

(A bit of trivia: his art collection would be the basis for the Getty Museum in Los Angeles. One of his grandsons, Mark Getty, co-founded the famous stock image website Getty images).

In July 1973, John Paul Getty III was kidnapped in Italy and a ransom note was sent to his mother. As described in the New York Times: “Dear Mummy,” his note began, “Since Monday I have fallen into the hands of kidnappers. Don’t let me be killed.”

The ransom demand was $17 million.

What’s the right thing to do?

One worry was the kidnapping was a hoax, possibly even organized by John Paul Getty III to get money from family.

No one in the family had that kind of money. So they asked if the grandfather Getty would pay the ransom. It was here that the eldest Getty considered an even larger game at hand:

The eldest Mr. Getty refused to pay the kidnappers anything, declaring that he had 14 grandchildren and “If I pay one penny now, I’ll have 14 kidnapped grandchildren.”

If I were to see this plot on a TV show or in a movie, I might argue that the logic is sensible and strategic. But since this involved a real kidnapping it is hard for me to be so objective.

And ultimately it is hard to write knowing the tragic events that followed:

Three months after the abduction, the kidnappers, who turned out to be Calabrian bandits with a possible connection to organized crime, cut off Mr. Getty’s ear and mailed it, along with a lock of his hair, to a Roman newspaper. … Eventually the kidnappers reduced their demands to around $3 million. According to the 1995 book “Painfully Rich: The Outrageous Fortune and Misfortunes of the Heirs of J. Paul Getty,” by John Pearson, the eldest Mr. Getty paid $2.2 million, the maximum that his accountants said would be tax-deductible. The boy’s father paid the rest, though he had to borrow it from his father — at 4 percent interest.

Was the eldest Mr. Getty considering a broader strategy? Or was it mostly about the money? The part about only paying the amount that was tax-deductible is not a flattering detail.

It is notable that he later stood by his decision, stating it had a larger perspective. He would not pay because of the externality that it might cause in the world:

I contend that acceding to the demands of criminals and terrorists merely guarantees the continuing increase and spread of lawlessness, violence and such outrages as terror-bombings, “skyjackings” and the slaughter of hostages that plague our present-day world. (Getty, 1976, pg.139) (quoted from Wikipedia)

In a fictional story, I could more easily praise the strategic reasoning. It is true that paying ransom for one grandson might inspire copy-cat kidnappers or even other hoaxes. And it is true that placating to one criminal might lead to the spread of others. This is exactly why a government might adopt a policy of “not negotiating with terrorists.” Perhaps seeing the elder Getty hold out discouraged kidnappers who would not want to get their hands dirty?

The larger strategic picture is hard to think about during a crisis. I would hope that experts use game theory to inform their decision. But I also hope there is something more the experts can do to fight kidnappers and preserve justice to society as a whole.