Death and the Maiden

I personally found this play to be one of the more interesting reads. The play is based in a society in which the dictatorship has been overthrown and replaced with a new democracy. Because there were lots of wrongdoings by government officials, people are wary to convict criminals from the dictatorship, because they believe by bringing up the past they will be unable to succeed as a democracy. While not necessarily a forgive and forget state of mind, people are willing to just forget and move on.
However, when Paulina's husband brings home a mysterious man as a house guest, she claims that, without seeing him, she recognizes his voice from her time as a political prisoner. She accuses this man, Dr. Miranda, of raping her and binds him to a chair in the night. In the morning, she decides to put Dr. Miranda on trial, with her husband as his lawyer, because she claims she wants a confession from him. In the end, she does get a confession, but it's unclear whether it's a constructed confession (with help from her husband) or a true confession. Paulina gets upset and points out that Dr. Miranda's confession was not parallel with what information she had given her husband, and Dr. Miranda had changed certain details to match the truth. Again, it's unclear who is telling the truth or who might be lying. The ending, though, is probably the most truthful thing we can claim that Paulina says. She reveals her exasperation and devastation from being tortured, and asks why the one who is tortured must always be the one to confess. As she threatens his life, she wonders what "we lose by killing one of them". Ultimately she gains a sense of power, like we often see interrogators do, and wants to "do justice".