An Ethical Double-Standard for God?

Another participant in the ongoing discussion agreed with my definitions of justice and mercy, then offered examples from our legal system to show how they weren't really at odds and might even be seen as harmonious. Here's a juicy one:

The State of California versus Goldstein. Goldstein was a young man charged with driving while intoxicated. It so happens that the judge to hear his case was his father who had a hard-nosed reputation - a "hanging judge" of sorts because he always gave out the full penalty for a given offense. The newspapers asked, "Will the hanging judge hang his own son?" When the son's guilt had been established, the Judge Goldstein fined his son $5,000. Then he stepped down from the bench, took off his judiciary robe, and said, "I am a just judge and require the full demands of the law for your offense. But I'm also your father and I know that you can't pay the fine, so I will pay the penalty for you." With that he submitted a check for $5,000.

Notice this example involves the presence of two opposing standards of justice: the law's vs. some benefactor's. It is extra entertainment value that a single person does double duty and serves up judgment based on both standards, but the benefactor need not be the judge enacting the law (anybody can pay your fine by giving you money or something that costs money, like food which would free up your food money to pay a fine). The law says Joe should feel the sting of a fine; some benefactor disagrees and erases that sting with a gift. Justice is served and Joe gets mercy -- high-five, it's Miller time! Except...

Also notice that one of the two opposing standards prevails: Joe can't both feel the sting of a fine and not, get a penalty and a break, receive both justice and mercy. Only one of the two standards obtains (benefactors win out in civil cases).

Finally, notice that the benefactor thinks it is unjust that Joe should feel the sting of that fine. The benefactor is actually attempting an act of justice in removing the sting with a gift. That makes sense, since (again) justice is getting what you do deserve while mercy is getting what you do not deserve. To pull off an act of mercy would require the benefactor to, oh, agree fully that Joe darned well should feel the sting of that fine... while paying it for him! If that sounds insane, it should: mercy and justice are literal opposites -- one has a "do" in a critical spot where the other has a "do not" -- so managing to accomplish both at the same time necessarily requires leaning on a double standard... remove the double standard and the contradiction really stands out.

So that inspires the question: Has God set up an analogous double standard? If so, who are the warring factions vying to enact their notion of justice as against the injustice of the others? (Or: As the lone Omni-Legislator, -Prosecutor, -Judge, -Jury, -Father, and -Creator, how could God disagree with Himself on what is just??) If not, then these examples don't help and we are still left staring at the bald contradiction of God being both just and unjust (merciful) at the same time and in the same respect.