Surely in a situation where lawyers can chose to accept or decline cases, it would be more ethically sound to decline cases where you do not believe in the innocence of the defendant?
Yes, yes. I realise lawyers are meant to be above niceties like bias and whatnot, but realistically speaking, they're still people and still have feelings. If you don't believe in the innocence of the person you're defending, can you really assure them you're going to perform at the top of your game? Isn't it ethically sounder not to place yourself in that position?
I would say no, for the reasons I've outlined. Lawyers are officers of the court and it's their professional responsibility to put aside their personal views on the case and to represent the client to the best of their ability. The criminal justice system depends on lawyers putting aside their personal feelings about the defendant and putting the defendant's case the the best of their ability, just as it depends on the jury putting aside their personal feelings and prejudices and judging the case on the facts as presented in evidence by both sides.
Certainly the lawyer may well, when advising her client, draw his attention to the weaknesses in his account of the events under scrutiny, raising with him the sort of searching questions he's likely to face in cross-examination. It may very well be that she advises the client, robustly if necessary, that it's going to be very difficult to persuade the jury of his case and his interests might well be best served by a guilty plea, perhaps to lesser charges if the prosecution will accept that.
At that point, the lawyer's advice quite frequently brings home to the defendant the reality of his position, and persuades him to accept his guilt. Or, if the client is unwilling to be represented by someone who he doesn't think believes in his innocence, he may seek to change his representation.
However, if the defendant maintains his innocence then, at least in the UK, it's very much the lawyer's professional responsibility to set aside her own views and put the client's case to the best of her ability, since otherwise it makes it very difficult for unpopular or unlikeable defendants to gain a fair trial.
It's the other side of the same principle that says prosecutors should not prosecute only cases where they believe the defendant is guilty. Certainly in the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service's policy is that the more serious the offence, if there's sufficient evidence on which a reasonable jury, properly directed, can convict if it accepts the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the greater the public interest in prosecuting the matter so that the outcome can be decided by a jury rather than behind closed doors by the lawyers.
This often leads, particularly in sexual assault cases, to prosecutions being brought where there's little realistic chance of success. That's distressing for the complainant, who is understandably likely to see an acquittal as the jury believing she was lying and making a false complaint rather than (which is more likely the case) the jury believing she's probably telling the truth, but they haven't been sufficiently persuaded to dismiss the possibility that the defendant is innocent. It's also, obviously, distressing for the innocent defendant, despite his likely acquittal at the case's conclusion.
However, it's considered far better for public confidence in law enforcement and the criminal justice system that decisions about guilt and innocence, particularly in serious criminal matters, is decided by juries rather than by police officers or prosecutors deciding they don't believe the complainant, or that there's no way a jury will believe her since she admits she'd been drinking or taking drugs before the alleged sexual attack, so they won't bother the courts with her complaints. That's the other side of the coin.
That's why I so strongly believe that lawyers have to put their personal feelings to one side and do their job by putting the client's case to the best of their ability -- whether the client is the defendant or the state/the crown -- and trust the jury to do their job of deciding on the facts of the case.
