I still find this morally dishonest an argument to make.
Person 1 tries to kill an evildoer.
Person 2 intervenes to state that they have full faith that the evildoer will still suffer extralegal repercussions, perhaps via vigilantism or by criminal social conventions causing the evildoer to be beaten, tormented and perhaps executed by other, less moral people, thus preserving Person 1 and 2's morality by just allowing it to happen instead of doing it themselves.
This feels like it comes not from a place of actual morality but outsourcing the immoral act to a hoped for act of unknown figures. Praying for the downfall of one's enemies and trusting in outside actors to do it without clear direct orders to do so but a cultural expectation of it happening.
Like tying up an enemy of war nearby a third mutually hostile party known for cannibalism. It's no longer on their shoulders that it is done, it is in the hands of another party, thus anything that happens is not their fault.
I could believe that one could just have faith in the system to see proper justice, unless one makes the aforementioned argument, then any declarations of actual justice being done by the system is tainted with an undercurrent of expectation of extralegal violence.
