Judges do not always get it right. That's clear when their decisions can be overturned, re-evaluated and re-delivered, as in the case of Hawea Vercoe's killer Isaiah Tai, whose original two-year 10-month sentence was quashed and replaced with a four-year six-month sentence.
But the fact this mechanism is in placeis just one example to show that judges are being held accountable and that their decisions, when wrong, can be recognised as such.
The group behind a new website - judgethejudges.co.nz - would like to see even greater judicial accountability.
The site highlights court cases and decisions made by district and high court judges across the country.
It launched yesterday featuring 12 cases. In eight of those, including the Tai case, the original sentence was seen as too lenient, while in the other four the judges are applauded for their hard line.
The Sensible Sentencing Trust says the site is not just about "naming and shaming" judges, saying it's also about educating the public on how the courts work.
But what it boils down to - as any naming and shaming exercise surely does - is an attempt to influence future behaviour, in this case judges' decisions.
The trust is right when it says the legal system and judiciary should be transparent - and it's right to encourage the public towards better understanding of those systems.
But that's because justice is a complicated beast. It's best this is kept in mind by anyone visiting the website.
Yes, judges should be accountable for their decisions. But justice is not done by referendum.
Society has moved on and assigned that role to people with vast legal experience. If they're not doing their job properly there are systems in place to deal with them.
We should hope that all they are taking into account when weighing decisions is what's in front of them, not what may be displayed on a website at a later date.
