It's not a question of law. It's a question of basic morality and humanity. Laws that put people of conscience in prison while protecting murderers are not laws worth following, respecting, or defending.
Being a "person of conscience" only means he was doing what he thought was right. Doesn't have anything to do with legal behavior. Many violent people are "people of conscience".
If you don't want people to legislate morality, then don't be surprised when there is no morality in your legislation.
Well, they do call it the "Justice" system. They could change the name I suppose.
There are many dictionaries which define "justice" as having a component of fairness or morality, as opposed to a merely mechanical sort of rules-based accounting of the Law. They are not hard to find, nor is it challenging to find reasonable (non-YE Creationist) people who might agree with those definitions. Even Websters, which does not mention morality, does include fairness. And, here [2] is a thing that calls itself "Law.com" and cites "The Peoples' Law Dictionary" and also includes "moral rightness" in its definition of "justice".
Do you enjoy these little time-wasting sophist nit-picks?
[1] Really just a link to the Wiki article, (and others) which of course has sources. https://duckduckgo.com/Justice
I enjoy people backing up their arguments with logic and reason instead of FUD and rhetoric.
If you're trying to prove a certain point you should be careful that your arguments are tailored to the point instead of being so broad that they could as easily be used to prove the opposite.
For example, what you've provided here is much more in support of your argument than "lots of people think $FOO".
Laws and morality are not mutually exclusive, but the presence of one doesn't require the other. Justice is where laws and morality meet. Did we apply the laws and was the outcome morally fitting? But if you don't have both, you can't have justice.