David Calabro has suggested (personal communication) that this sentence fragment may be the result of a loss of the verb are just before the preposition unto (“wherefore the ends of the law … are unto the inflicting of the punishment”). The original manuscript is not extant here, so we cannot be sure about the reading. The editors for the 1920 LDS edition dealt with this sentence fragment by specifically acknowledging it when they placed a dash at the end of the sentence fragment. Of course, the original text has numerous examples of such fragments, especially in long, complex sentences, as in the following example:
For further discussion, see Enos 1:1–2. For some other examples of sentence fragments in the original manuscript, see 1 Nephi 8:7 and 1 Nephi 13:30. Since the sentence fragment in 2 Nephi 2:10 is characteristic of other sentence fragments in the text, it is probably safest to assume that this fragment represents the original text.
Here in 2 Nephi 2:10, the scribe for both 𝓞 and 𝓟 was Oliver Cowdery. Yet elsewhere in the manuscripts, we have no examples of Oliver Cowdery ever accidentally dropping the verb form are. It is true that the unknown scribe 2 of 𝓟 twice omitted the verb form are, but in both instances Oliver Cowdery restored it when he proofed 𝓟 against 𝓞:
For the first example, the original manuscript is extant and reads are. In the second case, the 1830 edition has the are, which implies that 𝓞 did too since both 𝓟 and the 1830 edition are firsthand copies of 𝓞 for all of 3 Nephi.
Summary: Maintain in 2 Nephi 2:10 the sentence fragment found in the earliest textual source (the printer’s manuscript); such fragments are found elsewhere in the text.