However, Mill might oppose this alternative on the grounds that it does not promote general welfare because the criminal could possibly be released after a reasonable period of time, perhaps due to a good behavior or overcrowding, and therefore leaves the criminal with the opportunity to hurt people again in the future. However, this response is also inadequate because it assumes that the criminal justice system is destined 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, so death is the only option that guarantees the promotion of general well-being, which is, certainly , absurd. The problem with utilitarianism is not that it seeks to maximize happiness. Rather, utilitarianism is so fixated on generating maximum happiness that the need to take into account the morality of the individual actions that constitute its outcome is essentially eradicated. Doing so creates the possibility of committing unethical actions in the name of promoting general well-being, which, in turn, makes utilitarianism an inadequate ethical form.