In the words of Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Adolpho A. Birch Jr., “Judicial independence is the judge’s right to do the right thing or, believing it to be the right thing, to do the wrong thing.”

Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system, and, in order for that system to work, our judges should have the freedom to make decisions based on the law and the evidence before them, without letting the media, politics or other concerns sway their decisions and without fearing penalty in their careers.

Our judges should also be able to make decisions that are not subject to influence from the other branches of government.

Too often, however, when a criminal defendant allegedly commits another crime, the first thing we do is criticize the judge. One recent instance of such criticism involves the case of Daniel T. Tavares Jr.

Superior Court Judge Kathe M. Tuttman, after a bail hearing, released Tavares, who had been convicted and served his sentence for murdering his mother. Tavares then fled to the state of Washington where he is alleged to have killed again.

As a result, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the same person who appointed Judge Tuttman to the bench during his term as governor, publicly denounced Tuttman, calling for her resignation. Several other politicians followed suit.

In contrast, lawyers and judges recognize Tuttman’s decision as legally sound. As Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall and Chief Justice for Administration and Management of the Trial Court Robert A. Mulligan explained, “Under the Massachusetts bail statute and Constitution, judges are not free to deny release to a person awaiting trial for a crime based on the judge’s or the public’s assumption of dangerousness.”

While the system may have failed in the case of Daniel Tavares, we should not use this case, or any other, as an excuse to attack our judges. There are procedures for addressing judicial decisions that the public may view as erroneous.

For example, judicial rulings can be appealed to a higher court and, ultimately, to the U.S. Supreme Court. Laws can be changed through the legislative process. Additionally, judicial disciplinary processes can be utilized to effect the removal of judges who are incompetent or who violate ethical standards.

For our criminal justice system to work, our judges must be given the power to interpret and apply the laws impartially and without fear of reprisal. It would undermine our entire constitutional system if, in order to obtain a popular ruling, our judges begin to ignore or rewrite the laws from the bench.

It is the job of our judges to uphold our laws, however unpopular that may be. We need to respect their ability to make decisions based on the evidence and the law.

Julia Huston is president of the Women’s Bar Association of Massachusetts and a partner at Bromberg & Sunstein in Boston. She can be contacted at jhuston@bromsun.com. Michelle Bielunis is a member of the WBA and an associate at Proskauer Rose in Boston. She can be contacted at mbielunis@proskauer.com.

Let our judges judge! The importance of judicial independence