The practice of law and litigation is not concerned with normative or moral questions of right and wrong, merely whether something illegal was committed. It's sad, but it's true.
It's not sad at all. You wouldn't want a legal process that was concerned with morals instead of law. Morals are not universal; they are vague and subjective. Law is the anchor for evaluating adherence to moral norms we've agreed upon via our legislature.
To clarify, I agree with you, I used "sad" as a shortcut for "as much as you'd like it to be what you say, it's not"
Exactly, but it's not sad. Everything else is totalitarianism!
You're unfamiliar with the concept of justice?
No, I'm very familiar with it. Questions of whether a law was broken are not questions of justice. They may say things about justice, or lack thereof, in what the law is or how it is interrogated, but they're not one and the same.