Do peep shows “cause” crime? A response to Linz, Paul, and Yao
2006; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 43; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/00224490609552314
ISSN1559-8519
AutoresRichard McCleary, James W. Meeker,
Tópico(s)Wildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
ResumoGovernment regulation of adult entertainment businesses, including peep shows, must be aimed at mitigating adverse secondary effects such as crime. To determine whether San Diego’s regulations meet this Constitutional threshold, Linz, Paul, and Yao (2006) compared police calls-for-service (CFSs) in peep show and control areas. Finding no significant difference, they concluded that San Diego has no legitimate rationale for regulating any aspect of peep shows. We disagree not only with the Linz et al. finding, but also with the logical adequacy of their conclusion. Their finding is a methodological artifact, in our opinion, and their conclusion is a fallacy. Before explaining our opinion, however, we disclose two facts. First, although Linz et al. acknowledged that their article was based on an earlier paper, they did not acknowledge a still earlier report (Linz & Paul, 2002) commissioned by the plaintiffs in a lawsuit (Mercury Books v. City of San Diego, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 00-CV2461). This omission does not necessarily invalidate the Linz et al. finding, but the article’s ancestry may be a material fact in judging its “suitability, credibility, and validity for publication” in a peer-reviewed journal (Horton, 2004, p. 821).
Referência(s)