Death Penalty in Society, does it have a place

As a fore note, I am indeed pro-death penalty. However I've decided to play devil's advocate. So, without further a due, lets begin. Death Penalty in Society, does it have a place. -Negative, it does not. [Definition] Death Penalty: the execution of a criminal, in this debate method is lethal injection. Contention I: Hypocrisy Theory Essentially, the government cannot tell society that killing is wrong by killing the person. This is hypocritical and sends the wrong message. It is illogical to use the same tactic that you are trying to suppress. This is like a teacher telling a kid that bullying is wrong by hitting the him. An "eye for an eye" mentality is inherently hypocritical. Contention II: Arbitrary Punishment A) Killing of innocents The death penalty is final. If an innocent person is killed then the government has committed a horrible crime against one of its members. Essentially, if you follow the logic of the death penalty, then by killing an innocent the government must receive death as well. This is obviously illogical. However, the government must try to protect it's citizens from final and arbitrary punishment, i.e. the death penalty. B) Racism The death penalty throughout history has been used arbitrarily against non-whites. More blacks are killed by the death penalty then whites. If this is indeed racism, then the government is going against one of it's fundamental obligations, i.e. unbiased equality. Yes, punishments are arbitrary, however when the punishment is final, then the government has indeed committed a crime against it's people. Contention III: Right to life According to the constitution, we are guaranteed the inalienable right to life. If the government violates this right, then they themselves have committed a crime. Contention VI: Morality A) Categorical Imperative Maxim 1: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. The government is violating this first maxim because by killing, they are universalizing the action of killing and thus justifying killing altogether. Maxim 2: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end. The government is violating this maxim because it is violating the right to life of a person for a "possible" temporary security. They are violating a right to a good consequence that could happen. This violates deontological morality. Contention V: Cost The cost of the death penalty far exceeds that of life in prison without parole. Seems weird right? Not really. On an individual scale,. the death penalty would cost the same as one day imprison. However, the appeals process in the court system makes administering the death penalty really expensive. And what money pays the prosecutors? Tax payer money. So essentially, the death penalty costs society a lot of taxes. Contention VI: 8th Amendment "No cruel and unusual punishment." The death penalty is indeed cruel because it strips the right to life from another. Beccaria once said that the death penalty is the most barbaric and cruel punishment imaginable. (Beccaria was the philosopher behind the 8th amendment) Administering the death penalty violates the 8th amendment. Thank you ladies and gentlemen