I'm pretty ambivalent about punishment as a deterrent, but I would kinda' throw out that pretty much every bit of research we've done on the subject has shown that it, well, doesn't make (much of) a difference. Close enough to none to might as well be nonexistent. S'kinda' in the same realm as catharsis (temporary improvement of mood at best, sorry! Generally doesn't even do that, from what we've actually found.). Lots of anecdotal or historical support, falls apart under rigorous scrutiny.
I don't quite remember the specifics, but iirc (big if!), the rough of it is that A) most crimes (/actions society in general wants to be deterred) are crimes of passion, and most people caught in the heat of the moment simply aren't going to consider the consequences of their action -- potential punishment doesn't occur to them until after the act, if at all -- and B) those that aren't either don't care about the possibility of punishment (for whatever reason), making it no deterrent whatsoever, or they don't believe they'll be caught -- again, the possibility of retribution doesn't effect their actions in any particular way, insofar as prevention goes.
For all that we, as humans, in general tend to support retributive punishment, basically everything that involves hard study has shown that its usefulness is marginal, at best, and likely counterproductive in many cases. Even for the victims it tends to be little salve for the damage done. There's a reason so much literature involves the moral that vengeance is empty, perhaps.
Now, on a personal level, all I really know from experience is that dominance play (which involves a degree of punitive action, albeit much more specifically utilized than punishment tends to be in the human realm) can be pretty effective for dealing with several types of animals (dogs and cats in particular) in a positive manner. That doesn't necessarily extend to humans, especially once they're cognitively developed beyond a certain point. Most importantly to me is that retributive punishment just... doesn't seem to do anything. It doesn't seem to actually deter, it tends not to decrease recidivism, it doesn't improve the lives of those transgressed against -- for all that society seems to have this long standing message that punishment does something useful, it seems to, well, not. I'm for action that has positive effect, net gain, etc., so forth, so on. Punishment as a deterrent simply seems to not be that sort of action, which leaves me massively iffy about it.
More than that, I can't really say, I think. As for the object itself, well, maybe a bit of hypocrisy on my part. Rape's a bit of a berserk button and I'd be perfectly fine on an emotional level (if not a cognitive or ethical one) if the damned thing induced a deadly poison or something (though I'd note that removal isn't quite the same as punishment, natch. Different goals.). If it manages to do what the article claims (latch on and not let go, without causing actual damage or being able to be removed without professional intervention), it sounds like it'd be pretty good as an identifier, if not a deterrent. Especially if, I'unno, something like a tracking chip was implanted in the things. Cost'd go up a bit, but it might be useful. Maybe we'll have something even better than that thing at identifying at some point in the future.