The trial Rubashov undergoes during his internment is comprised of external pressures (of which there are many) and an internal struggle to reconcile the lost ideology of an older generation with the dogma of the new. His endeavor is illustrated through a fabricated confession obtained through controversial methods. Rubashov’s apparent willingness to provide incriminating evidence for a crime he did not commit is striking, particularly since it is characterized by an absence of genuine voluntary admission. The tactics that interrogators Ivanov and Gletkin employ are psychologically and physically designed to elicit confession, regardless of the statements’ legality. This approach, coupled with an inherently oppressive environment and the internal clamoring of personal demons, culminate in a decidedly coerced admission of guilt.
The reasoning behind Ivanov and Gletkin’s tactical approaches are similar. They both implement deductive logic to weave a tapestry of events criminalizing Rubashov; however, this rationale is used to different ends. Ivanov attempts to extract a general…show more content… First, the process by which Rubashov is interrogated violates the procedures established in Miranda v. Arizona for obtaining a proper confession. The Supreme Court “recognized that coercion can be mental, as well as physical, and that the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition (O’Brien 1105). Similarly, in Ashcraft v. Tennessee, the Court held that “the use of some confessions violates the due process clause because they are the result of “inherently coercive” police interrogations; here, Ashcraft’s confession came after thirty-six hours of continuous police questioning under electrical lights” (O’Brien 1092). Rubashov’s ordeal, though, was significantly more onerous under Gletkin’s “hard method” of
