CNN posted this 'shocking' video today about a recent execution of a man in Afghanistan.
This video looks shocking yes? A public execution. in the article that accompanies this video it was explained that this executed man commited capital murder, jealously killing the husband of his lover. The man first said his cousins were in on the murder as well until he later recanted his first confession and said he acted alone.
Now, the reason I'm asking the question in the title of the blog is because I'm wondering how different and uncivilized it is compared to the AMERICAN form of justice when it comes to capital murder and the death penalty. It was brought to my attention as I found myself agreeing with many of the commentors that didn't feel much remorse for the man and felt that this was more of a propaganda tool. On one side you see many commentors just yelling out "barbaric!", "Uncivilized!" and words in the article such as feudal justice but lets actually compare it to how it would play out in America.
In America, this man would be put to court, depending on how high profile and scandalous of a murder it was the trial would take place in a few months or possibly after a few years because of the constant backup in the court system. Now if the man was rich, he'll probably be able to buy himself out of the whole thing with a plea bargain and a slap on the wrist, maybe a few months in comfy, decked out jail cell or house arrest.
If he wasn't rich then he'd be tried by his peers, put in jail where he can enjoy the latest in cable television (depending on the prison), and several other amenities not available to many law abiding citizens. Meanwhile, he'd appeal over many, many years (even if he confessed such as this man did twice!) and the victims family would be pulled back into the courts over and over hoping for a final conviction and justice. Hoping this man does not get back on the streets after the damage he has done and could do again. This can go on for decades.
Then finally, after all appeals are exhausted the man will be put to death (in some states) by lethal injection. Not too long ago it was by a metal frying pan hooked up to electricity and before that a rope. The injection costs thousands of dollars to administer (which is paid for by taxpayers) because a professional is needed to administer the lethal concoction of drugs so that the person 'feels no pain.' However it has been shown several times that even this isn't fail proof. There have been times when a prisoner has needed several injections because they were improperly placed and didn't kill them immediately.
Here's the catch, many times the prisoner is held in a special cell and given his 'last meal' before being executed only to be saved by a last minute appeal (AGAIN) and then have to go through it all over again, not to mention the families of the victim(s).
Now you tell me, which sounds more barbaric? Which sounds more like cruel and unusual punishment?
Of course there are those of you that believe it should be abolished completely.
There are many criminals in the system that have committed such atrocious crimes and are labeled high risk for re-offending, thus being put in maximum security prisons. But really, WHY are they being kept alive (by taxpayer dollars thus also the money the victims pay when they work!) when they will no longer function as a civilian and have more or less given up their humanity through their atrocious crimes? But that's for another discussion. The real question is
The question I'm wanting to know is how is this form of capital punishment any more barbaric than the form we use on our own criminals?