2 is an issue. I interpret that in two ways and both are problematic.

A) You as an individual are allowed to ignore a law that conflicts with your own sense of justice. Historically, there was a period in the US where a black man touching a white woman, literally making physical contact, was seen as a capital offense. Those involved in the linching ignored the law to follow their own sense of justice. This would be just as permissable as noble crimes like stealing food to avoid starving or rebelling against a corrupt government.

B) The law cannot penalize a crime committed by someone who believes the actions they commited upholds their sense of justice. Ignoring the fact that one could just lie and say that it was justice that compelling them to do something, we again have to account for conflicting views of justice. That guy that burned down the wearhouse believed wholly that it was justice for the mistreatment levied by the company, but the executives of that company likely feel justified in paying them so poorly because that could just get a different job.

It would likely be better to incode a sense of justice that can't be argued against tusk allow the individual to make their own.