'simmonsjoe' is right about this (although coming from me that will probably tar and feather him from now on in this site). The Fifth Amendment says: "No person...shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."
Among the things it doesn't
say that it has been presumed to say, as for example in the Miranda Decision, is that no person can becompelled to give testimony against himself, or give evidence against himself, or provide damning information to the prosecution, etc., etc.
It says that no person can be compelled to act as a witnessagainst himself
in any form or fashion. The merepresence of a person brought before an inquisition of any kind intended extract incriminating information from him violates the Fifth Amendment.
The Jewish Law, The Halakha, prohibits the use of any such information obtained from the accused in a trial whether obtain voluntarily on his part or not. The Halakha recognizes that people are sometimes self destructive and actagainst their own interests. Their law is meant to protect peoplefrom their ownself-destructiveness. And that is what the Fifth Amendment intendedto do, but has thus far failed to do as a result of contary precedents down through the years.
Think ofit this way: If all the Fifth Amendment was meant to do (in it's relevant parts)was to protect the guilty
from acknowledging their guilt under oath, it isn't much of a protection is it? Why even bother with it?