By: W. Seth Cook*
Abstract
This essay examines the methods of argumentation used in death penalty cases and suggests that the inclusion of moral and ethical arguments, largely absent in modern death penalty challenges, remains vital to the success of the abolitionist movement. While there is good reason for advocates’ hesitancy to include these arguments, a look at the role religion and morality have historically played in abolition movements illustrates their importance. This essay proceeds to make two primary arguments for including moral arguments in death penalty advocacy: a philosophical argument and a pragmatic argument. First, these arguments combat moral distancing in the administration of the criminal justice system, which allows implied moral assumptions to go unchallenged on their own terms. Second, interest convergence theory illustrates the pragmatic benefit these arguments provide to the abolitionist movement by creating a broader coalition that sees their interests accomplished through death penalty abolition.
* Appellate Associate at Yetter Coleman LLP; J.D., University of Texas School of Law; B.A., University of Arkansas. The author is grateful to Cole Niles for his helpful feedback on early drafts and to Madison Steinmann and the editors of the Penn State Law Review for their excellent editorial support.
Suggested Citation:Â W. Seth Cook, The Role of Moral Language in Death Penalty Advocacy, 130 Penn St. L. Rev. Penn Statim 57 (2026).