Except that it could be argued that death by lethal injection (the electric chair is banned in most US states and never used in the others) is more humane than death by stoning and that the range of crimes punishable by death in the US are more serious than the crime committed by this Iranian woman. Not that I think execution is necessarily ever justified. The arms trade that Mockney touches on is an important point too. Not just the US but the UK and France do major business with Islamic states, selling everything from jet fighters and warships, to bullets. It's hypocritical to describe certain types of culture as a threat to democracy whilst raking in the profits from the sale of arms to those same countries. What tends to happen is that a smokescreen develops where a country claims to be working with the US to combat internal extremism in return for 'business'. Pakistan is an example of that. Years ago I attended a conference on Africa and it emerged that far more was given in free weapons and arms to certain countries than was given by those same countries in food, medical and other types of necessary aid. The US being one of the biggest donators of so called 'military aid', because presumably it was 'good for business'. When Iran fuses the issue of this woman's fate with some wider accusation of prejudice towards Iran then it's a difficult debate to win and unfortunately more likely to see this poor women's story be lost in the melting pot of the many issues causing tension bewteen Iran and the rest of the World at present.