http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/16/iranian-man-execution-hanged-alireza-meth

125 people have been hanged in Iran since Rouhani took office.

This guy was arrested with a kilo of crystal meth in his possession.

How many people would have their lives destroyed in order to give this guy a profit on his illegal business? I sat 'Hang him high'.

Another reminiscence :

When I was working in Iran - building a fertiliser factory near Persepolis - the area around our site was a poppy-growing area. The poppies were grown for their juice, which was turned into medicinal morphine. When the harvest started the Shah's army moved into the area, monitored the collecting of the crop and put it under 24-hour guard in a long shed next to our site. We had to keep clear of the area on pain of being shot first, identity checked later.

Drug-taking is endemic in both Afghanistan and parts of Iran. This is one reason for the lack of development of these countries, although there are greater reasons, such as landscape, difficulty of communication, climate, etc.

Going back to the original post - remember that the sentence by the British Courts used to be "Taken hence to a place of execution and hung by the neck until dead". Not just 'hung', but 'hung ... until dead'. Probably the sentence in the Iranian courts is similar. Therefore the re-hanging is legitimate.

Hanging somebody once is bad enough..... hanging the same person twice sounds like carelessness.

I just found the whole thing rather horrific. Hang him once, and think he's dead, take him to the morgue, he revives some while later..... so the Iranians nurse him up until he's in good condition, and THEN HANG HIM AGAIN! No, that's too much!

Maybe he was resurrected.. Wouldn't be the first time would it?

Maybe he was resurrected.. Wouldn't be the first time would it?

Nor the last.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24633608

An Iranian minister has said there is no 'need' to hang the man again, as it would be against Iran's image.

This does not commit the judiciary, though.