Public safety is a primary concern of the criminal justice system. There are three major components of the system: the police who investigate crimes and apprehend suspects; the prosecution, which charges and prosecutes defendants at trial; and the judiciary, which tries criminal cases and sentences persons convicted of crimes.

In this context, judges are subject to principles that govern their conduct and judgment. These principles, many of which are contained in the judicial code of conduct, and referred to verbatim or paraphrased herein, are crucial to understanding the proper role of the judiciary as among the three branches of government.

Certain fundamental principles govern the judicial process. Central to the criminal law process is the principle that all persons arrested and charged are presumed innocent. This presumption of innocence attaches to the defendant and judicial proceedings, including during pretrial proceedings, until (and if) a defendant is convicted.

Whether a defendant who has not been convicted should be subject to court-imposed restraints is dependent on the information that is provided to the courts and the particular circumstances of each case. A court is not permitted to make “pledges, promises or commitments in connection with cases, controversies or issues likely to come before the court that would be inconsistent” with the impartial performance of its duties in each particular case.

Equally essential to this presumption of innocence is the requirement that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Such proof is the highest standard of proof under the law, and the failure to garner such proof leaves in place the defendant’s presumption of innocence.

If convicted, the defendant is subject to sentencing by the court. As a matter of due process, sentencing must take into account the individual circumstances of the crime and of the defendant. Thus, there can be no blanket sentencing policy that singles out defendants because of their ethnicity, their socioeconomic status, their gender or other status for categorical treatment.

Judges under their code of conduct are duty-bound to adhere to these principles and must act impartially and fairly, without favoring either the prosecution or the defendant. Judges must act appropriately and avoid the appearance of impropriety.

The judges are admonished not to give way to the “clamor” of the crowd or to be drawn into the fray that may accompany highly emotional cases or criticism. In that regard judges “shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence … (their) conduct or judgment.”

Accordingly, a judge must decide matters based “on the law and the facts” and “without regard to whether particular laws or litigants are popular or unpopular with the public, the media, government officials or friends or family.”

Judges must remain independent, free from and resistant to efforts to influence their decisions whether such efforts are well-meaning or not.

The purpose of these principles is to maintain an independent judiciary that will not hesitate to apply the rule of law to all — evenly and equally. Adherence to these principles is imperative for the judiciary and judges to ensure justice in a democratic society.

Simeon R. Acoba, Jr., a retired Hawaii Supreme Court associate justice, has served as chairman of the Hawaii Access to Justice Commission and on the University of Hawaii board of regents.