Now, obviously, I am not saying that the police ought to be able to beat information out of you. (The right not to be tortured by the police exists separately from the right to remain silent -- more on that later.) But the "right against self-incrimination" says two things that never made sense to me. The first is that you can refuse to answer a point-blank question asking whether you committed a crime, even if the question elicits no other information that ought to remain private. The second is that if you refuse to answer, a court cannot even consider that as a factor in determining the likelihood of guilt. The first seems dubious as a moral principle; the second actually departs from reality, for no good reason that I can see.
Here's my scenario:
Bennett, did you ever steal anything?
Bennett, are you still beating your wife?
Bennett, did you write "I was masturbating to the sound of my own superbly polished writing skills and I just came all over the keyboard." in a forum readable by 9 year old girls? That is a felony in my jurisdiction.
No need to consult a lawyer, just cough up a binding series of Yes/No answers and bask in the brilliance of your impeccable logic.