As far as Benard is concerned, I think he is wrong. Yes Jesus gives us a different path where other acts of sin/crime are concerned but the Apostles speak quite clearly on the subject of the blood. the NT reitterates that the life is in the blood.
those who are blood guilty stand in a different light than any other group of criminals.
society must deal with the issue, and it remains within orthodoxy to prevent one who is blood guilty from killing again. the only way to insure a person cannot kill, is to require their blood (death) for that which was lost. period.
the key for the christian is to always defend the innocent blood. That is why opposition to Aboriton is so important, and why support of the death penalty is not out of the bounds of chirstian faith.
I believe that in Texas the laws as currently written stand strongly against finding an innocent person guilty of capital murder. I know of 1 person (a guy named Cantu I believe) who was executed in the 1980's that might have been innocent. since that time only 2 other cases even approach the subject. One was a person who was guilty of the crime but some said was of deminished capasity. i dont believe this execution was wrong.
the other was a fellow who was guilty of being involved in a robbery as the get away driver. His partner killed the store clerk (I think). both men were executed. this was well within the law.
Now in those states like Ohio (I think) where the law has been proven to put innocents to death or to convict them, it should be set asside until the system can be corrected.
there is a place for the Death Penalty, and it should have strict guidelines.
(that was for the reader not my current nemisis who seems to think he is the arbitor of all things Apostolic)
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Threaded Mode
