1.) The criticism's of Kleck's work by Hemenway (and vice versa) was usually (if not always) made on the basis of contemporary knowledge and accepted methodology, not any procedural revolutions in the field; I'm saying that there was never an instance during the research paradigm in which the individual articles came out (not later after methodological advances which may or may not have occurred) where a retraction had to be made. In short, Hemenway was effectively accusing Kleck (and vice-versa) of "blatantly defective" work by contemporary standards, not outdated or obsolete research.
2.) The article in question remains a research endeavor whose methodology is still in dispute, has yet to be "reproduced," and whose "objectivity" is no more respectable than that of Kleck (look up Branas's connections to the Joyce Foundation). Meanwhile, Kleck's survey results are consistent with most works in the field and his methodology was-reluctantly-vouched for by luminaries in the field of criminology.