Include 'The Right To Righteous Visual Representation' in the 5th Amendment

Even if you're not a US citizen [or as US citizen, have never been arrested], you probably know The Miranda Rights through countless movies and television shows. The admonition basically warns persons in custody — during their arrest and prior to an interrogation — of their following constitutional rights: 

1. You have the right to remain silent.

2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

3. You have the right to an attorney.

4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.

These rights fall under the Fifth Amendment, which is The Right Against Self-Incrimination [“[No person]…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”] and have been the foundation for constitutional rights since the 18th century [?]. 

The rights have not changed since, however, circumstances under which they are performed have. One can no longer only be brought into circumstances of possible verbal self-incrimination, but also into circumstances of visual self-incrimination.

Because how is an aggressive interrogation process, where the suspect might say something unfortunate that can be used against him/her in court, different from an aggressive documentation process, where the circumstances of taking visual 'evidence' (aka the Mugshot) may result in aesthetically unrighteous representation of the suspect — both in and after court? 

It can be argued that in this day and age, the visual incrimination can have an equal — if not bigger — impact on the life of one that is arrested. The booking record, created after one's arrest but before one's actual conviction, is considered to be public record and is distributed alike: 

- fascination for a certain 'criminal' lifestyle, industry of selling mugshots, services to remove mugshots from public database for a fee, endless distribution and circulation. Your mugshot will have an audience, it will be seen and if you don't have enough funds, it will be impossible to remove it permanently. 

If one has the right to verbal legal representation, why is there no right to visual legal representation?