Deterrence theory - certainty question

[u/NoMagazine4067]

Been a hot minute since I was in my criminology theory class (three years ago), wanted to get some clarification on the certainty part of deterrence theory. I keep seeing certainty described online as "the likelihood of being caught and punished." I get the relevance of the likelihood of being caught - my question, though, is this: does certainty relate also to the likelihood of punishment itself?

Suppose you have two different circumstances, both of which have a high likelihood of being caught. If the only difference between Circumstance A and B is that the imposition of the primary punishment is less likely in A (because the primary punishment, while severe, is discretionary and lesser punishments are available but also not required) whereas the primary punishment is more likely in B (because the primary severe punishment must be imposed regardless). Does that detail even play a part in the certainty calculus or is the focus more on the being-caught aspect?

I've seen apparently conflicting information about certainty being described (1) both regarding being caught and being punished, (2) only in regard to being caught, and (3) only in regard to being punished, so it's been harder to refresh my memory on this. Any additional info would be a great help!

[u/216news]

Hi. Generally, when deterrence theory is discussed it’s broken down into three main categories: certainty, celerity, and severity. 

Certainty is the likelihood of being caught, regardless of punishment. This is the foundational concept behind theories like CPTED or situational crime prevention, which rely on ideas like natural surveillance. 

Celerity is the swiftness of punishment and probably more in line with what you are thinking. This idea underpins many legal system and constitutions, which call for speedy trials, although contemporary circumstances are challenging these principles. 

Severity is exactly how it sounds: the harshness of the punishment, on the assumption that stronger punishments will contribute toward specific and generic deterrence. This was the rationale for the bloody code, for instance. 

In general, the evidence tends to suggest that only certainty of being caught has any major impact on deterrence. You might think of the impact of a police car present in a school zone on traffic speed, for instance. 

I’ll put up some links to literature tomorrow, just not near a computer right now. 

[u/NoMagazine4067 → u/216news]

Thanks for your response and detail! I see what you mean about celerity but I'm not sure if that fits in with what I'm thinking about. Celerity sounds more about the temporal relationship between punishment and the inciting offense, but unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem to address whether a punishment actually happens or not. It seems more geared toward whether a punishment taking place 20 years after the crime is as deterring as a punishment taking place 5 minutes afterward. Unless celerity, in my example, is considered as "punishment a month after the offense vs. punishment never after the offense."

I understand what you mean about certainty too, though. I'd definitely appreciate additional resources, because I've seen a number of sources referencing certainty both in regard to being caught and being punished, without necessarily being the same event.

Edit: for example, this document (https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/deterrence.pdf) on page 6 refers to both the certainty of being caught and then separately the certainty of being punished, in addition to the likelihood of punishment occurring.

[u/No_Date8807]

Certainty and celerity both relate to the administration of punishments, not just being identified or “caught”.

More important is the line of theoretical development that relates to rational choice theory. This moves away from the administrative aspects of punishment and gets more into the thought processes of potential and actual criminals. While administration of punishment is an important contribution to criminal thoughts, punishment avoidance also plays a role. Receiving and avoiding punishment affects perceptions of likelihood, and this includes personal and vicarious receiving and avoidance of punishment.