Arguing within the rational choice paradigm, and using Kelman's typology of rule compliance (forced compliance, identification, internalization), it is proposed that more severe punishment is superfluous for rules internalized by the majority of society (majority rules). For minority rules (not being internalized by the majority) a much more severe punishment can, in theory, play a role. In a responsive judicial climate, however, it is highly unlikely that such a strong increase of punishment severity will be implemented. For the small but harmful part of society that is obeying majority rules for reasons of forced compliance only, it is argued that rather than punishment severity, a high probability of being caught and prosecuted forms the major parameter of successful deterrence. The argument is illustrated by discussing a prolific offenders example. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]