I'm saying that judicial independence in the net protects innocent people from over-enthusiastic criminal prosecution—protects from the mob of the public who leans strongly in the direction of fear, anxiety, and precaution on the topic of crime. If you degrade the immunity of courts, you also open the gates to attacks on judges who are not sufficiently punitive on criminal defendants—your word, "accountability", is a double-edged sword that cuts more sharply on accused criminals and those who would defend them. Accountability for those who commit crimes (those who protect the criminals, undercut accountability). Accountability for those who failed to protect the public from dangerous deviants.

I don't know how better to phrase this. I fully agree with your values—but look at the state of things, it's right now even a contentious issue whether innocent people should be jailed or not. (That is, whether criminal defendants should enjoy their constitutional right to pre-trial bail, or if they should be put in a cage without trial, without conviction—the majority seems to lean in that direction, in the name of safetyism. The topic of "bail reform"). It's a complicated game where everything is genuinely awful and there's no clear path towards making things less awful, and a lot of the naive ideas counterintuitively make things worse. Political pressure on courts definitely would make things a lot worse, at this point; dead certain. What can one do, in such a world?

I'm in agreement with this, provided that the same level of scrutiny is applied when assessing the circumstances that led to a misstep in judgment/sentencing.