Final answer:
Raul Harrington's treatment is best described as coercion, which refers to forcing someone to act against their will through force or threats, undermining the voluntariness of his confession, thereby making it inadmissible in court.
Step-by-step explanation:
Raul Harrington's treatment in the scenario described can be categorized as coercion. Coercion refers to the practice of compelling a person to act against their will by using force or threats. In the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, similar principles were applied when the U.S. Supreme Court determined that a confession could not be admissible unless the suspect made aware of their rights and waived those rights voluntarily. The right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel during police interrogations are critical protections ensured by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, respectively.
The treatment Harrington endured before his confession, deprived of basic needs such as food and water, creates an environment of duress that undermines the voluntariness of his statement. In such cases, the courts must uphold the constitutional protections of individuals to maintain the integrity of the legal system. This is also highlighted in instances involving U.S. responses to terrorism, as seen in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, where the Supreme Court ruled that treatments of detainees should comply with U.S. law and international treaties.