Crime and (barbaric) Punishment

A friend sent this article from Daily Dawn titled "Who will cast the first stone?"

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/irfan-husain-who-will-cast-the-first-stone-470

... Interesting article. It starts a debate however, and a few things need to be established before nations follow suit throwing away the so called "barbaric" punishments.

1. Is it the extent of punishment that makes them barbaric? If so then we need to really rediscover what makes adultery or murder a lesser crime now than it was earlier. Are the victims of these crimes any less cheated or any less dead now?
2. Do systems that implement "scripture" punishments have the requisite method of trial in place also? e.g. 4 witnesses etc. (too simplistic but just I hope it sends my meaning across)

With any system of punishments, in any jurisprudent nation in the world, an essential sub-system is or should be implemented; that of audit and control (the judicial system). Even if a country were to abolish all "scripture" punishments but lacked this audit and control system, punishments will be given to innocent people while the guilty will roam free. To me, absence of this justice system is "barbaric".

Whenever an innocent person is killed wrongfully, whether it is by stoning or by electric chair, or whenever a killer roams about free, humanity is violated.