I'm no Bible scholar, but to me both of these passages strongly suggest that they were written during a time of transition in which older simpler stories of a god rewarding human sacrifice during times of extraordinary stress (such as famine or war) with divine favors (such as rainfall or military success), were being reinterpreted as representing acts of redress of injustices, such redress being demanded by the deity but carried out by the authorities.
Why do I think a reinterpretation was going on then? Because, for one thing, times of reinterpretation tend to be when things were most likely to get written down. With ancient texts in particular, we tend to think of whatever's written down as representing ideas and beliefs that must have been long-standing and well-established at the time they were written, but there's no good reason to think that as any sort of general rule. Quite the contrary. Just repeating the stories and lessons everyone already knows doesn't require that, but presenting a new version or interpretation to a population does.
In this specific case, that would explain why passages that are about crimes and punishments (unsanctioned killings in one case, theft in the other) also include elements of human sacrifice narratives (the lost favor of the deity being restored by the executions). A more primitive blood god was being recast as a god of covenants and justice. Of course, everyone's idea of justice at that time (and for millennia afterward) was itself crude, with inherited familial guilt a common idea and death a common penalty, and the passages reflect that as well.
What is completely clear in the context of the Old Testament is that the executions described in these passages were not sacrifices. I suppose you could call them that, in the same hyperbolic way you could call the tens of thousands of annual traffic accident victims in the present day sacrifices to our worship of petroleum, but that characterization would be meaningless to the writers and the original audiences of the passages. Contrast with the story of Abraham and Isaac, which is suppose to represent a would-be sacrifice. There, there's an altar and a sacred ritual, not the ignominious means (hanging and stoning, in the passages) used for judicial executions. It requires another reinterpretation, perhaps one from millennia later in another set of new texts, to shed doubt on the clear distinction between the two.
... we have nothing further to discuss