Should a Lawyer Defend Bad People?

Note: My 10-minute thought on our PALE assignment.


If by bad means probably guilty, Yes.

It's no less than the 1987 Constitution that provides for the presumption of innocence.   Section 14(2), Article III says,

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved..."

There cannot be a guilty person prior to the trial. His guilt can only be ascertained after both parties have been heard by an impartial judge. In our justice system, the three players - the prosecution, the defense and the courts have different roles to play.

In the prosecution of criminal cases, the prosecutor, representing the state, has the obligation of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He's tasked by the state to use all legal means to bring about justice and maintain, as a result, the peace and order in the country. The defense, on the other hand, has not only the legal but the ethical duty as well to ensure that he's able to provide the best defense for his clients. As a matter of fact a lawyer has sworn "to conduct himself to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients...without any mental reservation...." His oath is crystal clear. Ambiguity is absent. It is not his duty to decide on the guilt of his client. It's the judge's. If he is in the habit of judging [his] clients, he should wait for the time that he'll wear the black robe.

It is elementary in a democratic state to provide due process. Under section 14, Article III, 1987 Constitution, it says,

"that no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law." Nowhere can we find in any provision of law that convicts the accused first before the trial could even commence. The same principle applies to defense counsels. Thus, it is travestry of justice in its purest form if a lawyer would deny giving legal services to a person because he thinks that the person is guilty of the crime charged.

Justice is not served here rather it is being trampled upon.

If by bad means that the accused did it and the lawyer has personal knowledge of it, my answer will still be yes. In criminal law, there are facts that could acquit one's client because they were attended by either exempting or justifying circumstances. Proving ones guilt is not as easy as what others would have thought. Ordinary people have very limited understanding as to the complexity of the defense's job. Even the famous host of the O' Reilly show didn't get it. A few years ago, he [Bill O'Reilly] led a campaign to disbar Defense Counsel Feldman for vigorouly defending his client whom the latter alegedly knew is guilty of killing a child. Others just don't get it. It is not the defense's job to convict his client even if his client actually admitted to it.
At any rate, anyone who is accused of a crime is entitled to be presumed innocent. A defense lawyer is necessary to compel the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt otherwise all he needs is an iota [of doubt] and the state will be obliged to set him free. And besides, as what the famous British legal scholar once said, " It was better to have ten criminals escape punishment than to have one innocent man imprisoned."