The purpose was to make sure all the citizens understood their rights. Do you think it's a good thing if someone doesn't know their rights?
And if you think the SCOTUS made this decision so they could make the police look like drones and demoralize them you are incorrect. Not to mention disconnected from reality.
You can agree or disagree with the decision, but to characterize the motives of the judges in that way requires a vivid imagination.
Before this law, and even after, many LEOs lied to arrestees about their rights. That is a fact.
The truth is, it takes them off the hook by disallowing the defendants from claiming they didn't know their rights.
I have problems with the guilty not being held accountable because some imbecile didn't do his job. That part could be changed, but on balance, it was a good decision IMO.
Your mileage may differ.
Before this law, and even after, many LEOs lied to arrestees about their rights.
Hmm.. like the Sandy Burgular affair?.. Bill Clinton selling the Chinese the "Aegis System" and god knows what else?.. Like the democrat party literally stealing the Social Security trust fund, long ago?.. like the Federal Reserve Banking Act that was never fully ratified?...
Miranda accomplishs NOTHING.. except denyablity of the appearance of guilt.. The Miranda verbal cascade recited to the arrestee STOPS NO malfeance by the LEO's.. IF the LEO has a mind to mal-fease.. The court would/could appoint a lawyer whether the recital was read OR not..
You cannot cleanup the LEO system or even keep them honest by the mere recital of a few words.. If so; a so called Miranda type caveat should be read daily to every District Attorney and Judge.. where as much malfeance goes on as with the arresting COP.. maybe more.. considering plea bargins and all that..
Miranda merely puts lipstick on lawyers(and judges) making them appear better looking Drama Queens.. it aborts zero malfeance..