[Overpaid Slacker]

Aurel -
I'm on the fence about public executions, leaning anti-. But you glide over a couple of things in your lashing at BSJ. First, to say that if a barbaric regime does it, it's necessarily bad is a false premise. Barbaric regimes enforce laws (we may not agree with the laws) so is law enforcement bad? Barbaric regimes provide a measure of security for their subjects (from foreign invaders, eg), so is protection of the populous bad?
Second, many non-barbaric regimes held public executions. The Roman Empire was not barbaric, and may have done more to spread literacy, knowledge, technology and peace than any other regime in history (OK, the Pax Romana kind, but the everyday people living under the system were relatively safe and could rely on the rule of law). Romans had an incalculable number of public executions -- Christ for one.
Ancient Judaic societies stoned criminals to death. Up until the mid (late?) 19th century the British had public executions. The list goes on.

The issue is the due process to convict in the first place -- barbaric societies are barbaric in large part b/c they lack due process and are capricious (at best) in administration of the law.

The extreme punishments you mention are elements of the Islamic law. I disagree with the severity of the punishments, certainly, but the underlying crimes are still crimes. I don't think BSJ was advocating public torture of bread thieves and adulteresses.

In crimes of sufficient depravity, though, the death penalty is an option, following due process and conviction -- and if you want to make the punishment a deterrent, hey, public execution is probably the best way.

I definitely agree that they should sell good beer at the events.

JP