>> "moral wrongs result in people being locked up behind bars and their liberty taken away from them"

Imagine what the world would be like if this was true.

That's pretty much what we do.

The difficulty lies in determining what counts as a moral wrong. Some societies have left this in the hands of the judge (or feudal lord). Most modern societies require legislatures to write down the wrongs and have judges enforce them as written.

In this fellow's case, society decided that it was NOT a moral wrong. Many people (including the judge) may feel that what this person did (spending money that wasn't his but was available to him because of bank errors) was immoral. But others may feel that it is not ("Hey, he never lied to the bank - that makes it their problem."). As a society, we have decided that we won't let the judges declare something "wrong" unless the legislature had previously criminalized it, and in this case no existing laws applied.

A small but important distinction:

The justice system enforces the will of those who empower it. This has likely never been truly democratic. Not long ago it excluded blacks and women. Bias continues today evidenced by incarceration vs crime rates.

This is very distinct from implementing democratic justice.

Like any organization the justice system is fighting to stay alive - subject to selective pressures and evolution.

No one would get locked up because there is no such thing as morality? There are only ethical systems setup for a certain goal. At least that is true if there is no deity that a) tells us anything, and/or b) that gives a shit about what it said.

Saudi Arabia?

Not even close