h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>The punishment was not designed to reform, deter, or provide profit for the settlement, and can therefore be labeled for cruelty's sake.

- for cruelty's sake? Don't you say it was intended to be a deterrent? That's not entirely for cruelty's sake.\

This is an ambiguous and probably unobjective use of language. The purpose of the settlement was not to be cruel, it was to reform. The fact that their methods were primitive and ineffective doesn't detract from this fact.

In short: "for cruelty's sake" is incorrect and inaccurate.


>>The futility of excessive work as a reformation technique is indicated when recidivism rates are taken into account. The experience and reformation of convicts under experiments at reform contrasts strongly with the increase of crime and disobedience, as well as the 'unmitigated wretchedness' of the men themselves under the tortuous conditions of some of the more monstrous commandants.

- K, this paragraph lets me know that I don't have enough information. What was the island system? Was a person sent there for a specific number of years, or for life? "Settlement" connotes life to me, but recidivism suggests that they returned to civilisation. Could you give a better description of the general administration methodology?


You begin by saying what the island was, and then jump right into trying to fix it up. You never go into detail about what they were fixing. A paragraph or two describing the daily operation of the island, standard punishment, and regular procedure, would eludicate greatly.

Answer this:
What did people have to do to get sent there?
Could they ever get off? Why or why not?
What did they do there?
How were they structured? How were the levels of authority structured?
What were the rules? How were they enforced?

When you've answered this, the reader will have enough background to understand what was cruel and why it needed reform.


- Furthermore, the second half of the second sentence has two problems: 1 - it doesn't mean anything. 2 - it has nothing to do with the first half of the sentence or the paragraph in general. I know you feel for these poor wretches, but everything in its time. Hold the sympathy for when it's due.


This is in regard to the following sentence:
"The experience and reformation of convicts under experiments at reform contrasts strongly with the increase of crime and disobedience, as well as the 'unmitigated wretchedness' of the men themselves under the tortuous conditions of some of the more monstrous commandants."

To be perfectly frank, I don't think this sentence makes much sense. I can sort of understand what you're trying to say, but you're not saying it very well.

Additionally, "monstrous" doesn't belong. If something is monstrous, show us, and let us decide. I think this entries suffers most from lack of details.


- finally, can you alter the name of the section? 'Reformation' brings to mind reformation of the cruel system you've been mentioning (but not detailing). Only by the end of the second paragraph does one realise that you're referring to reformation of the prisoners.

Reformation:
1. of the Catholic Church
2. of a corrupt system/govt
3. of anti-social human beings

That's what comes to mind when you say "reformation" to me. Two of the three are possible subjects for the section. Thus, the title of the section is necessarily ambiguous: what is being reformed? The people, or the system? This doesn't become clear until halfway through the section. I suggest you revise the section title to make it more clear.

Entry: Convicts on Norfolk Island - A23781288
Author: Kyra - que sera sera - U1572880

>>However, the reformation of convicts through physical punishment has been proven to almost never work. Another person to discount profitability was New South Wales Governor Ralph Darling, who in 1827 regulated that convicts should be 'worked in irons that the example may deter others from the commission of crime'.

You realize that the first sentence in this paragraph has almost nothing to do with anything. It is a general statement about crime and punishment; this is a specific analysis of a system. If it didn't work here, say so (and you already have) - there is no need for indignant statements about crime punishment.


>>The deterrent effect Norfolk Island had on mainland Australia notwithstanding, if those in Britain were under the belief that transportation to Australia possibly offered them a chance at a better life, and the severity of Norfolk Island was unknown, it would have no beneficial deterrent effect at all, as the Molesworth Report explains:

- Whoa, whoa... are we talking theoretically here, or actuality? Did they know or not? This really happened, so how can we theorize?



>>Other Motivations

- what are we talking about again? what motivations? for whom? to do what?




To be continued.

Sorry, I came to this a little late. Here are some suggestions anyway in case they're useful:

When was Norfolk settled? You could put that information in this sentence:
>>When the island was first settled it was not intended to be a prison so horrific that...<<
->When the island was first settled in (such and such a date) it was not intended to be a prison so horrific that...<-

>>forced the convicts to work hard labour from sun-up to sun-set<<
suggest adding the word *at*
->forced the convicts to work at hard labour from sun-up to sun-set<-

>>and when the poor tools broke<<
this sounds like you are calling the convicts tools. do you mean
->and when the poor quality tools they were given broke<-

>>The experience and reformation of convicts under experiments at reform contrasts strongly with the increase in crime and disobedience<<
This doesn't quite make sense to me either. do you mean *with* instead of *and*?
->The experience with reformation of convicts under experiments at reform contrasts strongly with the increase in crime and disobedience<-
(it still doesn't make a lot of sense to me)

>>...which were not 'urged by the labour of convicts'. While Governor Bourke also urged Commandant Morisset...<<
two instances of *urged* are too close together. suggest:
->...which were not 'urged by the labour of convicts'. While Governor Bourke also instructed Commandant Morisset...<-

Thanks, I'll get to those things asap. I'm starting uni again tomorrow, so I'll be a bit slow.

You don't have to be slow to be at uni, it's just the common practise, that's all.

How's this one coming Kyra?

Hey K. Any luck doing any more to this and the other Entries you've got littered about Peer Review?

Hi, sorry to be so slack. It's just been a weird few months, I've barely done any work. I promise I'll try to tackle them, even one by one.

No rush, just hoped you were okay and hadn't disappeared and left us!

Nah, I like it here

How is it loooking then?

Ah screw it, it's too much work. It only got a B anyway I'll work on some of my other entries.

But I find this one more interesting than the others.

Yeah, me too, it's more of an opinion piece though, and I guess some people didn't like my opinion. I'd have to redo the whole thing, and I just don't have time.

Pity, but maybe you could do it some day.