Why do good lawyers represent bad people?

Leading Barrister, Robert Richter QC, has been involved in many high profile criminal trials. We asked him why good lawyers represent bad people. Here's his response. Presented by Victoria Law Foundation.

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

If "people are entitled to the best defence they can get, these days, that usually means the best defence they can afford", does that mean that if the best defence a person can get isn't very good, then, their entitlement is limited to a defence that isn't very good? is that then not a judgement, a determination that a person who does not know any better, is entitled to defence that isn't very good? aIso, does that mean there is a correlation between quality of defence and quantity of the monetary value sought for time, i.e. rate, and proportional to total monetary quantity available over time? If so, the amount sought for defence would be representational of quality, and for the purposes of defence, it would not then matter if a person was eligible for legal aid, as a fixed total amount available for a given rate would not be competitive with an amount available over an indetermined amount of time greater than could be afforded by legal aid at the same rate. As for " why do doctors cure bad people, because they don't make ethical judgments", who does determine which people are bad and need to be cured by a doctor? If so does that make those particular doctors complicit?Otherwise, it would seem to more apt to say, because they can pay. In those scenarios it would seem the professions role to be more administrative and less so of that of an actual profession. What have I got wrong here?

[@aussie207]

What if it was your son that pell abused