As with most discussions about the Miranda decision, your editorial misses the point.
In a weak moment a crook tells the truth. But because the incantation required by Miranda vs. Arizona was omitted, the jury may not hear the statement.
This rule has no basis in logic, history or constitutional language. It advances the rights of no one. Support for it comes in the form of irrelevant cliches--"It is not admissible to do a great right by doing a little wrong"--or in ad hominem --"This is not the kind of decision that you get from a body that thinks for itself."
Unfortunately, Miranda is still the law. But the "loftier view" you support goes further, allowing the defendant to commit perjury without fear of exposure. No amount of independence can turn it into a rational policy.
Deputy District Attorney