However, Mill might object to this alternative on the grounds that it does not promote the general welfare because the criminal may eventually be released after an appropriate amount of time, perhaps -be due to good behavior or overcrowding and therefore leaves the criminal the possibility of hurting people again in the future. Yet this response is also inadequate because it assumes that the criminal justice system is doomed to fail its inhabitants and that people are incapable of rehabilitation or redemption. In this way, Mill implies that no criminal will ever be able to atone for his crimes and reduce the threat he poses to society. Death is therefore the only option that ensures the promotion of general well-being, which is surely absurd. The problem with utilitarianism is not that it seeks to maximize happiness. Rather, it is that utilitarianism is so obsessed with generating the greatest happiness that the need to consider the morality of the individual actions that constitute the outcome is essentially eradicated. Doing so creates the possibility of committing unethical actions in the name of promoting general welfare, which, in turn, makes utilitarianism an inadequate ethical model..