Punishment sociology endeavors to explain the rationale behind punishing individuals. It literally seeks to justify the objective of the principle of punishing offenders. Generally, it involves intentionally inflicting pain as well as deprivation of a certain right to individuals. Both the modern and contemporary societies had some form of theory to support punishment used as a means of maintaining order within the society. The theories mainly fall into two broad categories, namely utilitarian and retributive. The utilitarian theory endeavors to impose punitive actions on the offenders in order to discourage or deter future wrong acts. On the other hand, retributive theory endeavors to impose punitive actions on the offenders because they deserve the imposed punishment. Lessnoff (1971) notes that on the basis of the utilitarian theory, laws should be intended to optimize societal happiness. Given that crime and punishment are both inconsistent with happiness, the two should be kept at minimal levels. Despite understanding that crime cannot cease within society, utilitarians still go ahead to inflict punishment as a means of deterring future crimes. Naturally, the utilitarian theory is a consequentialist approach. Recognizing that punishment has consequences, both to the offender and the society, in addition to holding the opinion that total good produced through punishment should not exceed the overall evil. Put otherwise, punishment should not lack limits. A good illustration of the consequentialist ideology is the release of inmates who suffer from debilitating ailments. It recognizes that when a prisoner is ill and his/her death is imminent, society is not in any way served by his continued confinement. Given that such a person is not able to continue committing crimes. Basically, the idea behind this approach is that laws that specify punishment for criminal acts need to be engineered in such a manner that they deter future criminal behaviors. Deterrence works at a specified as well as a generalized level. General deterrence works to prevent other members of the society from engaging in criminal behaviors, whereby the imposed punishment acts as an example to other members as to what could befall them if they get engaged in crime. It also puts another criminal on notice that their behaviors are punishable. On the other hand, specific deterrence implies that punishment is meant to prevent the same person from committing criminal acts in the future. Specific deterrence generally operates in two ways. Firstly, the offender may be jailed or imprisoned as a means of physically preventing them from committing other criminal acts during a specified length of time. Secondly, this form of incapacitation is meant to be unpleasant and as such discourage the offender from re-engaging in the criminal acts. Other than consequentialist approach, utilitarian philosophy makes use of rehabilitation as a justification for punishment. Rehabilitation is meant to limit future criminal acts by giving the offenders and opportunity to succeed within the legal confines (Johnston, Bruce, & Marvin, 1970). The rehabilitative measures for crime perpetrators include treatment for afflictions suffered by the offenders including mental ailments, chemical dependencies, as well as chronic violent acts. Rehabilitation also provides educ