Final answer:
The argument "Eye for an eye" is not an abolitionist rationale; it's a retributive justice perspective in favor of the death penalty. Abolitionist arguments often cite the death penalty as cruel and unusual, irreversible, and question its deterrent effect.
Step-by-step explanation:
The argument regarding the death penalty that is not an abolitionist rationale is "D. Eye for an eye." Abolitionist arguments typically include opposition due to the death penalty being seen as cruel and unusual punishment (A), concern about its irreversibility, especially in the case of wrongful convictions (B), and skepticism over its effectiveness as a deterrent (C). "Eye for an eye" reflects a retributive justice perspective, which is an argument in favor of the death penalty rather than against it.
The Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishments" indicates the changing perceptions of what is acceptable as a form of capital punishment. However, as seen in Furman v. Georgia and subsequent Supreme Court rulings, the use of the death penalty must adhere to constitutional guidelines that aim to prevent disproportionate or excessive punishment. Also, the Supreme Court has limited the application of the death penalty, such as to those with intellectual disabilities or those who were under the age of 18 at the time of their offense, as noted in several cases including Roper v. Simmons.