Alireza M., a man condemned to death in Iran, recently survived his 12-minute hanging. The weeks that followed revolved around the absurd question of what to do with a man who survived his execution. The insanity of considering such a question exposes the madness and agonizing uncertainty of any capital punishment system.

The country’s Islamic judiciary has been placed in the position of answering the banal question of whether Alireza’s sentence was carried out or if he should be re-executed. The case for re-execution is simplistic. Nourollah Aziz-Mohammadi, a senior judge, asserted “when a convict is sentenced to death, he must die after the sentence is carried out.” Indeed, the man was sentenced to death, not hanging. But Alireza has also been severely punished in the same way he would have been had he died. His survival could therefore be seen as inconsequential, and another hanging could be considered an unjustified punishment.

Iran is one of 10 countries with a judicial system based in Shariah law. The complexities of Islam impede its application to legal institutions. The Quran teaches to “take not life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law.” This is a clear sanction of capital punishment, but its application is, at times, inconsistent. Under Iranian law, a woman condemned to be stoned, who also manages to escape the ditch in which she was buried, can be freed. The man who has survived the hangman’s noose fits this model.

A grand ayatollah has issued a fatwa, which orders the re-execution of those who do not die. It would appear that Iran’s judiciary is now faced with answering another absurd question of whether Alireza actually died. Thanks to the ayatollah’s announcement that the fatwa should not apply, Alireza’s life has been spared.

The confusing process by which this decision was reached mirrors the agonizing uncertainty of those condemned to death.

The American execution of Troy Davis epitomizes this agony. Davis was executed in 2011, after three previous execution dates were all abandoned as a result of innumerable appeals. It is a hallmark of our legal system that Davis had the opportunity to challenge his sentence. But the sheer length of this process forces the condemned to continually re-evaluate whether or not he or she faces death. This is needlessly excruciating.

The damage done by the executioner state is not limited to the execution. It is the inhumanity and the ambiguity of the legal procedure itself that incessantly tortures the convicted individual before he or she is killed.

 A version of this article appeared in the Nov. 6 print edition. Peter Keffer is a deputy opinion editor. Email him at [email protected].