[Update: Appropriately, today is Constitution Day. In honor of it, the government will uphold and violate the document in some unknown unequal measure.]
I noted recently that the problem of factually innocent people being executed is probably not on its own a compelling reason to end the practice. The death penalty is one of those "sum of its parts" matters, where the various problems interlock into an illegitimate system. It can, however, be a useful way to highlight the problems of the system, since it seems so blatant even to those who support the death penalty overall. And, yes, the net effect can be to provide a backdoor attack on the penalty itself.
One such problem, again fairly minor on its own are problems with carrying out executions. A matter addressed in various recent Supreme Court cases. Over forty years ago, the Supreme Court barely upheld the right of a state to try again when they botched the execution the first time. An extended discussion of the case can be found here. As noted by the 5-4 majority (Frankfurter begged the governor to commute the case, but signed on), "The executioner threw the switch, but, presumably because of some mechanical difficulty, death did not result." The dissent noted the "contrast is that between instantaneous death and death by installments."*
If we look at the recent Supreme Court case just cited, the sentiment that "necessary suffering involved in any method employed to extinguish life humanely" principle set forth in the majority opinion still holds. Justice Alito's separate opinion particularly rejects the idea that we can determine that the system is so inhumane that we can set up an in effect backdoor method of abolition. So, it is unclear how the recently botched Ohio execution will turn out. OTOH, since this is not the first time Ohio had problems with its injection protocol, it is likely to have problems.
Some comments cited by the linked articles suggest that the proper path is to change how lethal injections are carried forth. There clearly is room for improvement, underlining the usefulness of continual lower court review of the procedures used. Executing IV drug users in particular is problematic, particularly when medical personnel might not want to be involved because of ethical problems. If there will be botched medical procedures, there will be botched medical executions.
Penalties will always have problems. The ultimate question: are they worth it in any given case? I say "no," here, but honest sorts will admit that resting on that will only convince the already convinced. OTOH, as the dissent in that old case note, the "the unusual facts before us" provide a credible argument that something special is going on here. Luck, or not, a "do over" should not be allowed. It is particularly cruel and unusual to allow such a move. Finally, it could serve as a type of exclusionary rule to help prevent this from happening again.
But, yes, such logic is based on "death is different," and does the rest on the bare facts of a mistake or botched execution of a penalty per se.
---
* A full reading of the dissent suggests that ultimately it rests on narrow grounds, partially a matter of unclear facts that might be clarified on remand, but this doesn't erase some of its broader principles.