Justice is defined by what the people responsible for determining, enforcing and executing the justice, not you.
No, that's not true. Justice is defined not only by a legal construct called "natural law", but by the codification of a body of legal precident and explicit legislative action.
Your opinion has no bearing.
There's no legal basis for such an opinion. The legal system recognizes justice not as the capricious opinion of lawgivers, but as an innate sense that the people possess. The legal framework exists not to create and define justice, but to administer and pursue it.
If these people decided that justice is served by the issuing of a ticket and payment of a fine and they don't proscribe who coughs up the cash, then when the cash is coughed up, justice is done.
Boy, you're pretty much a moral empty shell, aren't you? If it weren't for a strict authoritarian framework dictating your ethical conclusions, you wouldn't be able to tell right from wrong, would you?
It matters not who pays the fine in this case
But "these people" have
not decided that this is appropriate. As I said there's no legal basis for your assertion. Our legal system, contrary to your assertion, does not recognize justice merely as the paying of fines, but of the paying of fines by the guilty party.
Your assertion is neither true in principle nor true under its own merits.
Justice is defined by the justice maker, not you.
There's no basis for such an opinion. You've offered the "justice" of the bully, the psychopath, the vigilante. The justice of "might makes right." Civilization is not founded on such a presumption; thank goodness that the majority of human beings have an instinctive knowledge of what is just and are not moral black holes, absolutely devoid of any internalized moral code, like you.
Your entire argument is swept away with the simple observation that, despite your assertion that the lawmakers define justice, we regularly prosecute lawmakers for unjust actions. How is that even possible under your model?