Laying aside the emotional rhetoric, the point being debated is whether public interests will be harmed or not. What's clear is that prosecutorial interests wil

Laying aside the emotional rhetoric, the point being debated is whether public interests will be harmed or not. What's clear is that prosecutorial interests will be harmed, but the entire point of constitutional rights is that sometimes there is conflict between the interests of those who prosecute crimes and the public interest. For example, you could easily argue that having a lawyer present during interrogation harms public interests for exactly the same reasons: Child molesters, terrorists, and just plain naughty people will clam up and not give investigators information that could lead to a conviction. We had that discussion, and south of the border you decided that public interests were harmed by not allowing a lawyer to be present and were further harmed by not warning suspects of their rights. (Canada takes a different view with respect to the right to a lawyer for complex reasons.)