If a judge acquits a guilty person, we call it a miscarriage of justice, or if the judge knows he is acquitting the guilty, a travesty of justice. If a judge pardons someone who repents, we say the judge is merciful and wise. If the judge pardons someone who he knows will keep committing crimes and has no intention to repent then we call it an abuse of leniency.
If you are trying to describe the American justice system, then almost all of this is completely wrong. For example, acquittals do not mean a person is innocent (ask OJ), Judges do not issue pardons, executives do such as governors or the President. In addition, there is no requirement for repentance for a pardon to be issued, and there is no necessary expectation for not committing the same crime in the future (give Clinton truth serum and ask him about Mark Rich, and notice that no one criticized Clinton over this aspect of that pardon). There are more examples, but you get the idea.
In any event, even with your use of "acquittal" you are forgetting the fact that when an acquittal is rendered then NO ONE pays any price. The person, guilty or not in fact, simply goes free. No one is punished. Therefore, this would not seem to fit any comparison you are trying to make to some false gospel.
In the biblical justice system, the Judge is the one who grants the pardons.
KJV Numbers 14:18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
In the biblical justice system acquittals are only supposed to be issued to the innocent:
KJV Deuteronomy 25:1 If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.
KJV Exodus 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.
In any event, even with your use of "acquittal" you are forgetting the fact that when an acquittal is rendered then NO ONE pays any price
No, I have not forgotten that. That's why the the Church teaches two gospels, one false, and one true. You cannot combine acquittal with the actual payment of the penalty, because you are right, that with an acquittal there is no penalty to be paid!
With the doctrine of "imputed righteousness" or "active obedience" the discovery process is corrupted and changed into a lie. The "believer" is not found a sinner. Somehow Justice is blinded. Logically this leads to no need for a penalty, because the judge is going to find no guilt. Thus this concept conflicts with the true gospel.
With the true gospel the sinner is found guilty, and in eternity, it will always be a truism that so and so saved person was guilty of sin in the present age. The difference is that that person repented and Christ paid the penalty for him so he could be pardoned. But that doesn't change the legal finding of the saved persons guilt.
So the Church teaches two gospels, somewhat mixed up I agree. The question is which one are you going to believe.