Further discussion of Ian Ayres & John Donohue

7/25/03

Stanford Law Review

For those following the earlier debate over the Ayres and Donohue and Plassmann and Whitley pieces in the Stanford Law Review, the editors published a "clarification" (Vol. 55, no. 5) concerning one of Ayres and Donohue's attacks in their exchange with Plassmann and Whitley in the May issue. The editors use some relatively strong language stating that the impression created by "Ayres and Donohue's Reply piece is incorrect, unfortunate, and unwarranted" when discussing the authorship of the Plassmann and Whitley paper. While the "clarification" does mention that "continuing disagreement ... over certain revisions" that had been made and new ones that were requested, it is useful to know that among the changes: the length of the paper had been cut in half and it is my understanding from Florenz Plassmann that there were additional changes made after I dropped my affiliation with the paper. The editor's statement, while I don't view it as complete (see 6/9/03), is appreciated.

Unfortunately, Donohue has continued to make these comments in other places (e.g., see his piece entitled "THE FINAL BULLET . . ." in the July issue of Criminology and Public Policy).