The Talmud infers routes of appeal for criminals from the Torah that are very similar to American routes today (American capital justice is even more lenient). Compared to other legislation of its time, yes, it was more lenient to criminals than Roman law, or even later interpretations like Vlad's. But it's no justice to forbid the accused from means of appeal, just as it's no justice to allow dilatory appeal. In its context, while it can be said to be an early means by which people "hid" their crimes by creating many loopholes, the fact that the crimes were recorded is better than the Roman system of bribing your way through violations of the Twelve Tables. So on that point it's got mixed character, but it does wrestle with the subject early in a way that American jurisprudence continues to work through, namely, the balance between rights of the accused and rights of the victim.

This is overshadowed, however, by the Talmud's recognition of victim rights unlike any of the time. Based on the need for enforcement without tyranny as shown by Ezra and Nehemiah setting up a board to review unnaturalized immigrants (the divorce list), the covenant people continued to develop standards, using individual cases, where mercy could be shown. Thus some passages objected to are actually the first to recognize the rights of child victims (such as to prevent their victimization from affecting their future reputation), the rights of young adults who have lashed out thoughtlessly against their families to have the benefit of their inexperience, the rights of women to produce personal admissible evidence, and the rights of an individual participant in a riot not to be tried for the crimes of the crowd, the rights of those entrapped by cults without full knowledge of the cult's crime, and even the rights of chaste suitors to give gifts without being accused of impropriety.

Now, we could object to declaration of refusal to vow as being very easy to abuse, and document that it has been abused. The text says that (a) a person has the right to refuse to be taken as making vows and that (b) such a person has the duty to inform people of that refusal; in that it should not be problematic. However, textual and historical indications show that, even to the present day, the declaration has become a thoughtless commitment (an annual liturgy) and the duty to inform has become "revelation of method", namely an underhanded admission that one is lying, framed in such a way that the framer makes himself believe that the audience is the one deceiving itself if it doesn't understand. This is deplorable whomever does it (Christians and Muslims have their ways to do the same), but this cannot be blamed on the text.

The wicked should be punished with objective justice and should be given rights of appeal with objective mercy. Those convicted of pederasty, murder, or adultery were executed according to the text of the Torah and the Talmud (albeit the Torah on pederasty is by inference). The OP and links do not recognize the place of these documents, or of the New Testament, in the history of jurisprudence, but instead take a shallow view based on cherry-picked misquotations.