I understand your premise. You represent it decently.
I’m only a layman, but it seems to me it’s reasonable to warn people to keep their yap shut. The general defendant at times is confused about what actually took place themselves. They’re confused about what guilt is reasoned. They’re confused about what the law actually is. In these instances they can confess guilt on conscience grounds, and be as wrong as can be.
Let me ask you this. Do you believe a spouse should be forced to testify against against their spouse? Perhaps you do.
If you do, then your argument would make more sense. If you don’t, it would seem you agreed with a guy being required to testify against himself, but then his wife wouldn’t have to.
Is there any adult in America who hasn't watched a cop show where they read the defendant his rights? Is there anyone in America over the age of 18 that doesn't know he has "A right to remain silent"?
Why on Earth should the cops have to tell every suspect in every crime that they should not talk to them?
Is that REALLY in the Fifth Amendment? Is it written somewhere in the penumbras of the words in between the lines?
Let me ask you this. Do you believe a spouse should be forced to testify against against their spouse? Perhaps you do.
That is not a constitutional protection. It is a statutory protection and the states are free to remove that protection should they so desire. These days, with homosexual marriage being solemnized, I might reconsider whether the protection is a good idea, since marriage apparently has no meaning at all anymore.
FWIW, there is no jurisdiction where a parent cannot be forced to testify against their own child. I would think that a parent/child bond is more deserving of that protection than a husband/wife and particularly more than a husband/husband or wife/wife marital bond.