Very arguably. So much so that the original arguments for this position (that black people are simply sentenced at disproportionately high rates) have been largely academically abandoned, now replaced with more nuanced objections (e.g. that crimes with white victims are punished by death at higher rates than those with black victims). I find virtually all of these arguments unconvincing (see Blecker 13).

Respectfully, your paragraph reads something like this. "The evidence suggests the death penalty is not racist. Instead, it says the death penalty is racist."

Even were they true, it seems only to follow that we should be executing more white people, since the upshot of this argument is that white are being under-punished. I don't see how it could possibly justify abolition of capital punishment.

The actual implication of the argument is that we should stop executing people, since black people are being over-punished.

Probably, but we also imprison innocent people.

This is a bit easier to undo, no?

This is also probably true, although much of this has to do with the extensive appeals process (something which I don't actually oppose).

It is good that you do not oppose this. Without these appeals, we would murder a lot more innocent people.

You can't place a price on justice, tho.

Those first four points were for people who care about utils for w/e dumb reason.

I don't want to kill people painlessly.

I am going to be honest with you. It hurts me a bit to read that. I cannot even understand it. The founding fathers would have thought this point was barbaric, and the barbarism of it is even more apparent today.

Maybe, but that's not the reason I advocate it.

I genuinely do not understand any other principles or considerations that would support the death penalty.

You'll have to give an actual argument for that, considering I defend it on deontological grounds.

See also: the next several sentences of my comment.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

It means exactly what it says. This argument feels like it is in bad faith and that you are being intentionally obtuse.

So?

People do not deserve to be slaughtered because of things that are largely out of their control. People do not deserve to be slaughtered because of things they had no meaningful sense of agency about.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean

Again, it means exactly what it says. We should strive to better than that.

and it seems implausible (we think of soldiers as noble, not as terrible people, for fighting on behalf of their country).

Modern people defend war and soldiers purely as necessary for defense.