Aren't accidents/mistakes with execution EXACTLY the reason to remove it? There can never be any kind of restitution or redress after someone is wrongly executed.
Whether it can be proven that anyone was wrongly executed recently or not is besides the point. Unless one believes the justice system is flawless, the possibility exists for wrongful execution. That possibility is enough to be against execution, if one believes that the executing of an innocent person outweighs the executing of criminals.
I also wonder what execution being a common form of punishment throughout history has to do with the subject. That it's been common in our past doesn't make it a good idea by any stretch of the imagination.
Whether you think it's a good idea or not is irrelavant. But the fact that it's common throughout history makes the argument that it's "cruel and unusual punishment" completely incorrect.
There is restitution and redress. It just doesn't come from the government.
Well, whether it is cruel and unusual is entirely subjective. Considering how far other judgements and morals have changed over time, the fact that executions have gone on throughout history is still not an extremely compelling argument one way or another. It may not be unusual but still be considered cruel. But I didn't realize that was the point you were making, sorry for the misread.
I assume you are speaking of god and the afterlife when you say there is restitution and redress.
Whether there is some form of redress in an afterlife doesn't seem particularly relevant to a discussion of justice and executions performed by the government, especially a secular government.
More, that there may be redress for the wrongs done after death could be used as an excuse to execute anyone and everyone; if the executions were performed wrongly, well, don't worry, the people will be recompensed in the afterlife! Now put the next one on the table.
