Justice: Right and Wrong v. Good and Bad

One definition of justice in a court of law is that justice is a decision which resulted from a case or trial in which all parties played by the rules -- determine how the law is to be interpreted and carried out; everybody plays by the rules, you have justice.  Implementing a law in a logically valid way, is operationally speaking, justice.

But, from this perspective, carrying out a law, by engaging in actions that hurt people in ways that are morally unjustified and repugnant, is justice.  A law that systematically privileges one party over another, still results in justice if the law is applied according to the rules.

In other words, a law cannot be just or unjust.  Justice is a function of applying a system of rules as they are applied to inputs to the judicial system; whereas using the law as an input or datum into the judicial system is self-referential or results in a paradox, no outcome can be reached -- the law cannot take itself to court.  In other words, you cannot call a law just or unjust.  But you can call a law good or bad, good or evil, foolish or wise, basically something that does or does not reflect the values of society.

And of course, a neutral law can be applied in a morally reprehensible way.

In other words, a law is not just or unjust, it can be good or bad or somewhere in between; or it can be applied, the result of which is something good or bad (or somewhere in between).

Some laws regulate interaction, such as traffic regulation -- "the rules of the road".  These regulations can also define the conditions and scope under which the law is applied; for instance, whether one subgroup of all the people to whom it applies is systematically selected for a specified outcome.