discussion of justice v.s. forgiveness

These are my thoughts about why Christianity distorts the meaning of justice and forgiveness in order to make sense of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. My view is that the crucifixion atonement was not the idea of the old testament God but rather a Christian interpretation of Jesus' untimely death at the hands of the Romans. At least, that's my present theory.

Forgiveness:
True forgiveness can only be offered by the person who is affected by the hurtful action. All offences must be hurtful towards for God in order for him to forgive them. Also, God could choose to forgive those offences that were hurtful to him, without inflicting punishment on a type of "scapegoat".
It is kind of odd when the person who is victim to an offence does not forgive, and God who is not directly affected "does". To me, every evil action offends humans and God separately. Think of a Jewish mother who watches her husband and children get murdered during the Holocaust. God may forgive the Nazi officer who repents of his sin and therefore inflict the punishment he deserved on Jesus, but the horrified mother who is the true victim may never forgive him. Therefore he will not have received forgiveness from the person most affected.
It is difficult to imagine how God is actually offended or affected by our crimes on this planet. I know he made us as image-bearers, but that doesn’t fully explain his offence to all our petty deeds or even evil crimes.
Justice:
True justice must be inflicted on the offender who is responsible for the sinful actions. As the divine law-giver, he could also punish offences that men inflict upon each other. The idea that sin could be punished independent of the perpetrator is very odd. My view of the cross, is that God is diverting his wrath onto a willing substitute, namely a part of himself. A more appropriate term for this is "propitiation", which means "to win or regain the favour of" or "appeasement", which means "placating someone by agreeing to their demands". This definition is more in line with the "satisfaction theory" of atonement. Call it "God’s justice" if you will, but it does not fully fit the human definition of justice. In fact, the word "placation" is not a word that you would prefer to use for a loving God. It is reminiscent of the ancient volcano gods who required a virgin sacrifice to appease them.
Therefore, I am not disputing that God couldn’t work his reconciliation and justification through the cross but why it was necessary that Christ suffer a painful, brutal violent death in order for God to offer "forgiveness" is difficult to understand.
Additional thoughts:
God is very much like our law and legal system. He is not directly affected by our violent sinful deeds; other humans are. Unless God personally feels the pain of each person who is a victim, and surely God couldn’t feel the pain, or understand and feel hopelessness, or frustration or anger, and so could not actually be in a position to forgive.
Just like the human justice system, he can only punish based on violation of established laws, decrees and ordinances he has set. The only person acceptable to God is the one who obeys the laws perfectly. The old law, the ten commandments were not out of reach to obey, although some of them were likely to be broken occasionally (ie. Honor your father and mother). When Jesus arrived on the scene, however, he changed the interpretation of the laws by showing that God judged the heart more than outward actions. In this way, it became impossible to fully obey each law since it raised it to an "internal purity" standard. Also, the law was summarized by Jesus as these 2 commandments:
1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.
(Obey each of his commands perfectly all the time with proper heart motivations)
2. Love your neighbour as yourself.
(Treat fellow mankind in a moral, decent way, according to God’s law)
Therefore, God’s punishment is based on trespassing his laws and decrees, and therefore he must punish the sinner to be perfect in his justice. However, since God’s justice requires death, eternal separation from God and/or hell-fire (according to Christian dogma), he would have to throw every single living person into the flames. We’d deserve it too, so they say, because we violated God’s perfect standard. So for God to be perfect in justice, he would have to punish us, and since we require the due penalty, we’d be on the hook for hell. Therefore, in order to save us, God must slacken off, or outright alter, his standard of justice in order to set us free or release us. God clearly stated that "the soul who sins, it shall die". This leaves no room for a substitute.
In the same way that the human justice system cannot forgive the criminal for his deeds to the victim. Neither can God forgive the sinner for the crimes the person committed against a human victim. He can only forgive the trespass concerning his moral laws and commands. This is a profound difficulty, since the sinner cannot receive complete forgiveness from God alone. This means that God really doesn’t avenge or judge every misdeed, nor can he truly forgive. For instance, how could God forgive a Islamic terrorist who participated in Sept. 11, even if he became Christian and repented? This forgiveness won’t erase the hurt, heal the pain or lessen the anger that the families feel. God could simply forgive him for disobeying his command and committing murder. Ultimately, it wouldn’t make much difference if he killed 1 person or 3,000, he is only breaking 1 command and God is not in the business of tallying up sins or measuring the gravity of each offence. God is willing to forgive a multitude of sins for the same package deal that comes with faith in Christ.
We’re told that He punished Jesus for our sins, but we don’t know if it was for the cumulative sins of mankind or simply the weight of God’s anger against sin in general. Did he punish Jesus in a measured amount of wrath, proportionate to the seriousness, and equal to the number of total offences? If he did, he would need to punish Jesus for an eternity, like he had in mind for us. It’s true that Jesus was innocent before God, and that he had the divine power to defeat Satan and overcome the grave, but if God was pouring out his wrath of sin on Jesus, then Jesus’ sacrifice could not possibly have accounted for the enduring force of God’s anger. Or would we say that since Jesus was God, he alone could carry the full weight of God’s anger at collective mankind and somehow could absorb an "eternal" punishment in one afternoon. If Jesus’ innocence alone is what acquitted us, then God wouldn’t have needed to punish Jesus at all, since he is the mediator who represents mankind, and lived a perfect life for us. We could then be justified by accepting Jesus’ life as our perfect moral example. How does the death and sacrifice of an innocent human-being bring about reconciliation anyhow? It certainly is not accomplishing justice in any sense. Once again, the only way we can account for the cross death and suffering as atonement, is to see God as a raging "volcano god" whose needs appeasement and placation.
Another problem is that the old testament has several views of God, each of which has ample mention throughout the books. There is the God who demands sacrifice and atonement through animal offerings and there is also the view of God which does not demand sacrifice and can forgive through repentance alone. It appears that one view of God is concerned with authoritative obedience to direct orders and instructions. The other view shows God concerned with the state of the heart as much as perfect obedience. One God view is concerned with healing the people and being reasonable, the other about glorifying himself and displaying his power and wrath. Are these truly one and the same God? Or are there different opinions in the Bible about what God is like? Which is more likely?