Questions of Validity and Drawing Conclusions from Simulation Studies in Procedural Justice: A Comment

Pauline Houlden's article explores an often neglected aspect of plea bargaining-the defendant's role in, and perception of, the process. It is a valuable contribution to the plea bargaining literature. Her findings should certainly be considered, along with those of studies using different methodological approaches to similar problems (e.g., Heinz and Kerstetter, 1979; Arcuri, 1975), by anyone interested in modification of the plea bargaining system. However, in making policy recommendations solely on the basis of her own results, Houlden goes beyond what can justifiably be concluded from her data. She is not alone in such overextension; it is common in simulation studies of procedural justice (Sheppard and Vidmar, 1979, is an explicit exception). In this comment we discuss several issues of validity and try to show how failure to consider them affects conclusions drawn from simulation