It attempts to answer the question of what act will produce the greatest amount of good or happiness for the greatest amount of people. An act is considered morally justified when it produces a greater amount of happiness than unhappiness. It is easy to see how this system could be used to justify the morality of using the death penalty as a deterrent to crime. Many people believe that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to others to commit similar crimes. The logic here is that if one is faced with the prospect of death, he or she will reconsider committing a heinous crime such as rape or murder. Thus, the relatively small amount of unhappiness caused by the death of one criminal is far outweighed by the great unhappiness that is prevented by deterring many other criminal acts. This same method of hedonistic calculus might be used to show how the level of happiness gained in the distribution of retributive punishment outweighs the amount of unhappiness produced in its application. There are a couple of problems with this logic. The first is a practical matter. It can not actually be shown as fact that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. It seems like common sense that it would deter crime. A murderer, however, is not typically guided by good sense. Furthermore, there are many recent studies and statistics that show that crime actually increases in areas where the death penalty is used as punishment. The second problem with a utilitarian justification of the death penalty touches on a fundamental problem with the utilitarian system itself. The utilitarian's concern with the consequences of an action rather than with the action itself would allow for grave injustices in the application of punishment. If punishment is used as a deterrent in order to maximize happiness, it would not matter if the person being punished was actually guilty. Framing an innocent person and punishing him or her would have the same effect of frightening others out of committing the same crime.