Final answer:
The 'Just deserts' argument is not an abolitionist rationale as it is used to justify punishment proportionate to the crime, which can include the death penalty, rather than arguing against it.
Step-by-step explanation:
The argument regarding the death penalty that is not an abolitionist rationale is 'Just deserts'. Abolitionist arguments typically focus on issues such as lack of proven deterrence, discrimination, and arbitrariness of capital punishment. 'Just deserts' refers to the idea that criminals deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their crime, which can be interpreted as a justification for the death penalty rather than an argument against it. Abolitionists counter this with the concept that even severe crimes should not be met with capital punishment due to the potential for wrongful execution, the finality and severity of the punishment, and moral or ethical considerations.