This is barbaric but expected from the religion of peace and tolerance.
A number of appalling rationalization were made by some craven critters on SNet. I say craven critters because these people prefer justice served by liberal democracies (by living in liberal democracies) and yet support barbaric and inhumane punishments served by theocratic dictatorships or vigilante justice. Stop hiding in the West and go live under the justice systems you support.
With that said, here are a couple of appalling rationalizations:
1) Barbaric public punishments are about deterrence.
ANS: there are two problems with this argument. One, where is JUSTICE? Deterrence and justice are not the same. Where is the justice of the victim and the accused

Did the little kid who was allegedly raped and then dismembered not deserve justice? Second, if these public punishments are about deterrence, why do they have to be so barbaric? We protect against car theft with car insurance, theft protection systems, cameras in parking lots and so on. There are so many non-violent measures we can take to deter against potential crimes, why do the punishment have to be so gruesome and bloody?
2) These punishments are needed to fight crime
ANS: If gruesome public punishment are such a good tool against crimes, why did Europeans, who by all objective measures used as gruesome if not more gruesome public punishments less than 200 hundred years ago, stopped using those punishments? It is interesting question don't you think? Give it a thought or do some research as to why Europeans ended these practices but muslims practice 'em in 2009. Just to give a hint: it's not secular Islamic governments with strong judicial systems that practice these punishments; it's mostly practiced in countries with weak states or where no functioning state exists plus states ideologically committed to implementing medieval punishments (Iran and S. Arabia for instance).