NINE RELEVANT ATTRIBUTES OF LEGAL PUNISHMENT ARE NOTED BY THE AUTHOR: OBJECTIVE CERTAINTY, PERCEIVED CERTAINTY, PERCEIVED SEVERITY OF PRESCRIBED PUNISHMENTS, PERCEIVED SEVERITY OF ACTUAL PUNISHMENTS, PRESUMPTIVE SEVERITY OF ACTUAL PUNISHMENTS, OBJECTIVE CELERITY, PERCEIVED CELERITY, PRESUMPTIVE CELERITY OF PRESCRIBED PUNISHMENTS, AND KNOWLEDGE OF PRESCRIBED PUNISHMENTS. THE AUTHOR'S CRITICAL REVIEW OF PURPORTED TESTS OF THE DETERRENCE DOCTRINE SHOWS THAT ONLY THREE OF THE ATTRIBUTES OF PUNISHMENT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND THAT THE INVESTIGATORS IGNORED POSSIBLE PREVENTIVE CONSEQUENCES OF PUNISHMENT OTHER THAN DETERRENCE. NINE SUCH CONSEQUENCES (INCAPACITATION, NORMATIVE VALIDATION, ETC.) ARE ANALYZED IN THIS BOOK. THE AUTHOR MAINTAINS THAT ALL OF THE ATTRIBUTES OF PUNISHMENT AND THEIR POSSIBLE PREVENTIVE CONSEQUENCES ARE CRUCIAL IN CONSIDERING CONTENDING PENAL POLICIES. THE AUTHOR NOTES THAT LEGISLATORS ARE PREOCCUPIED WITH THE SEVERITY OF STATUTORY PENALTIES; HOWEVER, THAT ATTRIBUTE OF LEGAL PUNISHMENT IS OF QUESTIONABLE SIGNIFICANCE. MOREOVER, HE STATES THAT A DEFENSIBLE PENAL POLICY IS PRECLUDED UNLESS POLICY MAKERS RECOGNIZE THREE TYPES OF DETERRENCE ABSOLUTE, RESTRICTIVE, AND SPECIFIC. IT IS ARGUED THAT DETERRENCE MAY WELL BE A NEGLIGIBLE CONSEQUENCE OF LEGAL PUNISHMENTS IN COMPARISON TO OTHER EFFECTS, A POINT THAT BOTH CRITICS OF A PUNITIVE PENAL POLICY AND ADVOCATES OF THE DETERRENCE DOCTRINE SEEM TO IGNORE. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)