It seems like Justice aims to be a zero-sum game, and theoretically that seems a good thing in terms of a crime vs. compensation (eg gnasher729's trouser anaology : $100 stolen, victim is down $100 plus a hole in the trousers .. presumably the thief, if caught, is ordered to pay the money back and compensate for the de-trousing).
If insurance can be considered a kind of justice, then it certainly also aims to be zero-sum in that all that the incident has cost the victim should be claimable - except the insurance premium, that is....
Furthermore, not all sentences issued (whatever the scenario) are about punishment. Sometimes they're about removing people from society or kirbing behaviour for public protection, where the decree from the judge might even seem harsh - eg if someone is judged insane they can be detained even though they might not have done anything too awful (yet).
But .. what about if justice is a punishment ? Murder vs. 30 years in jail, 10 years for "good behaviour" ? Is the victim any less dead because the murderer behaved well in jail?
The question for those last two cases becomes whether you call them "justice".
And so I wonder if justice is too subjective to call it a "zero sum game" (depends who'se doing the summing!), even though that's probably what we intuitively aim at?