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

I am an unworthy researcher who asked for his proposed Entry to be reviewed. I titled the request wrongly, but another researcher, Loonytunes, corrected this for me. Sadly, this isn't good enough, perhaps because I didn't correct it myself, thereby demonstrating remorse.

The correctly-named thread is about to be "sin-binned", apparently, and no-one will read my Entry unless I grovel a lot in the direction of the Towers. Well, here I am grovelling, but it should be pretty obvious that I'm not amused by this whole charade.

When I consider the dry and sophisticated humour that lies behind all of this (Douglas Adams humour, that is, not mine), I think perhaps that the lunatics have been put back into the asylum, which is once more being run by sane but very very grey men.

I suppose recommending my entry's out of the question, then?

Pattern-chaser

One of the fundamental laws at h2g2 is reading and following the posted guidelines

Pattern-chaser's spendid yarn can be read here http://www.h2g2.com/A492338

I'm not entirely sure how useful this one is, myself. It's titled "Fundamentals of Law", but it only appears to be an extremely brief bit on what a law is, and then some classifications on punishments for breaking laws.

This may just be me, but I've always kind of thought that an entry should contain some useful information that isn't already known to 90% of the population in order to be put into the "edited guide".

Some other points:

* Frankly, I can't think of *anywhere* on the globe where laws are only a national entity, even on small islands like the UK. laws can be international, continental, national, regional, or local -- and that's just the ones that are set by geographic boundaries. there are also tribal laws, cultural mores which are often interpreted as laws, school laws, codes of laws applying to professionaly groups (such as doctors), club laws, etc.

* Rather than expounding upon the philosophy or history or sociology of law (as the title suggests), the vast majority of this entry is actually the author's personal opinion about the penal system attached to the said law.

I'd say this one might belong in the Writer's Workshop rather than Peer Review.

Just my 2 cents....

Mikey

Mikey said "...it only appears to be an extremely brief bit on what a law is, and then some classifications on punishments for breaking laws."

Yes, that's right. I even say straight out "The purpose of this entry is to ask (and answer) two (rhetorical) questions [...] What is the purpose of the Rules? [...] What is the purpose of these penalties?"

Mikey went on to say "I've always kind of thought that an entry should contain some useful information that isn't already known to 90% of the population in order to be put into the 'edited guide'."

Then you're a better man than me, Mikey! Are you honestly telling me that the reasoning behind the penalties for law-breaking is well known to you? OK, when someone else lays it out, few people would have a problem understanding, but this isn't the same as being common knowledge. New discoveries are often obvious ... *after* someone else explains them or points them out.

I accept the bit about the level at which laws are made. It wasn't an essential part of the article; I'll delete it.

Mikey then says "Rather than expounding upon the philosophy or history or sociology of law (as the title suggests), the vast majority of this entry is actually the author's personal opinion about the penal system attached to the said law."

Now I'm sorry, but I find this kind of misrepresentation offensive.

+ The whole entry isn't big enough to qualify for the term "vast", let alone part of it.

+ The *reasoning behind* the penalties for breaking laws is - in my opinion - "expounding upon the philosophy or history or sociology of law", as the title suggests.

+ The only *opinion* I can find in the whole entry is the final paragraph. Hardly the "vast majority", is it? The majority of this small entry is concerned with the discussion of possible reasons for the penalties for breaking laws. Unless such a discussion is fatally flawed - perhaps by omitting to cover obvious points or points of view - it is quite different from a mere expression of personal opinion.

Mikey finishes off with this: "I'd say this one might belong in the Writer's Workshop..."

Well thanks, Mikey. I know I made a bad start by criticising the way in which entries are submitted and considered, but I expected more than this. My entry isn't the best piece of prose ever assembled, but it's clear, simple, short and informative.

It's all very well ending your comments with "just my 2 cents....", but the fact of the matter is that my entry will never enter the edited guide after what you have said. I suppose I asked for it.

Pattern-chaser

I think part of the problem is the mention of 'the author'. Its my impression that personal opinions arent meant to go into the guide (they wouldnt go into an encyclopedia). Perhaps you could get across the same ideas by giving an explanation for your view, based on the actual facts, rather than just an opinion. So rather than "In the author's opinion, punishment (revenge) is pointless.", you could do something like "the usefulness of punishment (revenge) is unclear, assuming a utilitarian basis for the club,...etc"

Better?

Pattern-chaser

Henry S: I do think the personal opinion belongs into the guide, just take a look into the bits written on "Nightlife in XY" or "Pubs to visit in Tasmania" or suchlike. It's a matter of degree I reckon.
As for the Article itself, I just want to re-affirm that I think it should be titled "Fundamentals of Criminal Law". The reasons for this I've set out somewhere in the sin-binned thread, but I guess you remember, Pattern-chaser.
Cheers
Tube

Pattern Chaser - feels more appropriate to me, but then what do I know
Incidentally, the point of punishment is clear from the point of view of what the general population sometimes wants (revenge). This makes sense if you believe in 'an eye for an eye', and 'an eye for an eye' makes sense evolutionarily for small tribes of about 30, though it may not apply to current 'clubs' of 60 million or so.

Tube - Something like "Nightlife in XY" doesnt feel like a definitive entry. It would be easy for someone else to come along and write an alternative viewpoint, and both could coexist in the guide. For a statement of ideology or belief about something such as religion or the purpose of laws I think its different.

True. But a personal point of view comes into the whole thing when a researcher describes the (in her/his opinion) "main" principle behind (criminal) law. And even if not explicitly, then the greater amount of research/text written will be devoted to that 'main' principle. IMHO law is pretty much a system of believes (eg a judges rules what he believes to be fair/true/in tune with the statues...) and there is no real objectiveness. Noone is able to be objective, one can only try not to let ones ideas shine through too obviously.

I've seen this entry hanging around on Peer Review for a few weeks and finally decided to come look at it. I started reading all the discussion threads and I was expecting a real mess .....

In reality I found a decent article about crime & punishment or maybe fundamentals of law. My thoughts on it are:

- maybe the title doesn't match the content, but there is a good point being made here.
- it all seems pretty factual with good worked examples.
- I saw a documentary on prisons recently and they said there were 4 things people believe prison should provide. I think, although cannot be sure that the 4th was re-education - ie stop person from doing the same crime again once released. I release the author has said stated there are "at least three possible purposes", but to my mind this is quite an important one, especially in civilised clubs.

My only other comment is about the discussion thread. It all seems to be a bit pedantic, semantic and defensive. I suggest everybody:
1) puts on their openminded, happy head
2) takes a deep breath
3) rereads the entry
4) puts in constructive criticism.

Anyway remember if you can't do the time, don't do the crime

I liked this entry. I think the title is probably a mis-match, as has been remarked. "Fundamentals of Law," led me, anyway, to expect information on the practice of law, y'know, with people arguing precedents and filing motions and all that.

Anyway, regarding this entry, I agree with the poster who mentioned a fourth purpose of punishment: rehabilitation/re-education. I recently had a job working as a librarian in a privately run American prison, and had a chance to think about these issues. With that in mind, and with your permission, I would like to comment on the purposes of imprisonment.

1. Punishment/Revenge seems to me bloody-minded, philistine and pointless. If the victim or the victim's family desires revenge, they only betray their own lack of civilisation. This is the purpose that prison guards seem to identify most closely with.
2. Deterrence kind of makes sense. For it to be effective, the general population should be informed of what the punishments are, and the punishments should be enforced so as not to ring hollow as threats.
3. Protection of the innocents/Removal seems justified, although, by itself, a dead end. Without rehabilitation, there is no reason to believe that a criminal will not become a repeat offender, so we might as well throw away the key, or kill them all.
4. Rehabilitation/Education is, in my opinion, what makes prisons worth the bricks they're built with. It is forward looking, productive, effective in reducing crime, and nearly unheard of among American Correctional Officers. While I was working at the jail where I was, I saw a GED (Graduate Equivalency Diploma) program cancelled for no discernable reason.

Well, now that's off my chest. Good entry, anyway. It's concise, and it covers its topic (be that what it may) thoroughly and clearly. It'd be great if you'd mention rehabilitation/re-education.

Bright Blue Shorts () wrote: "I was expecting a real mess [...] In reality I found a decent article"

Why thank you.

BBS continues "maybe the title doesn't match the content"

I do take this point, but I can't come up with a better title that captures what the article is intended to address. It isn't about criminal law, it's pitched at a higher level of abstraction than that. It just addresses "law", without considering too deeply its boundaries or contents. Really, it's about the reasons for the penalties associated with breaking the law, but that's a long and uncool title, n'est ce pas?

BBS "saw a documentary on prisons recently and they said there were 4 things people believe prison should provide. I think, although cannot be sure that the 4th was re-education..."

Yes, this should be addressed in the 'protection of innocents' section. As GTBacchus says, "Protection of the innocents/Removal seems justified, although, by itself, a dead end. Without rehabilitation, there is no reason to believe that a criminal will not become a repeat offender, so we might as well throw away the key, or kill them all." I agree, and I'll reword the text so as to make this in intrinsic part of the 'protection' scheme.

BBS ends up with "My only other comment is about the discussion thread. It all seems to be a bit pedantic, semantic and defensive."

I suppose I started it, venting my spleen on (what seems to me to be) an unnecessarily rigorous approach to posting entries for submission. I'll try to be friendlier...

Thanks, guys, for the positive feedback.

Pattern-chaser

I don't know if this will go anywhere, but it occurs to me that "Fundamentals of Law" would make an excellent subject for a University of Life project, and that this entry would be an excellent part of that project. There's just so much to say, and this is just one piece (albeit an important one!). A full UoL project would provide context, and you could bounce ideas around with other researchers who are working on related entries.

dunno... This entry is sort of about the philosophy of crime and punishment, but that name is sort of taken ...

An alternative title:

How about "If you break the law..."

Too flippant? It's a lot closer than the current title.

Pattern-chaser

P.S. the project sounds like a Good Idea. What is this UoL project? I assume it's on H2G2 - URL?

How about "The Purpose of Prisons" although that would lose the benefit of question 1. So maybe we need to add in something for Q1 like "Why societies have rules?". But then this doesn't answer Q2. So how about "Why societies have rules, the consequence of breaking them and the purpose of the consequences" although that seems a bit long ....

Alternatively how about "Why Breaking the Law has Consequences"?

How about "The Purpose of Prisons" although that would lose the benefit of question 1. So maybe we need to add in something for Q1 like "Why societies have rules?". But then this doesn't answer Q2. So how about "Why societies have rules, the consequence of breaking them and the purpose of the consequences" although that seems a bit long ....

Alternatively how about "Why Breaking the Law has Consequences"?

Ok, the University of Life IS part of h2g2, and you can find out all about it here:

http://www.h2g2.com/C573

(Besides, if you join the University and become a Field Researcher, they'll HAVE TO listen to you... Bwaa-ha-ha-ha-ha!)

As for titles for this entry, hmmmm...

"Criminal Justice - What and Wherefore?"
"Breaking the Law"
"Crime and Consequences"
"Big Bird Presents: Prison Tattoos at Home! (Fun for the whole family!)"
"Laws and Society"
"Deep Throat XVII"

Well, that's just a few suggestions. I dunno, really.

Pattern-Chaser --

Sorry if I came off as a tad blunt -- I had taken from my reading of your original posting on this thread that bluntness was your preferred style. I'll try to be somewhat subtler this go around. However, I still stand by the substance of my comments.

>Yes, that's right. I even say straight out "The purpose of this >entry is to ask (and answer) two (rhetorical) questions [...] What >is the purpose of the Rules? [...] What is the purpose of these >
>penalties?"

Yes, but in my reading of the entry, you did not truly answer the first question, nor even seriously attempt to do so. There's only two or three sentences answering the first question, as opposed to 8 paragraphs on the latter. The sentences answering the first question are vague, with the second sentence (which is also the most substantial) pertaining only to a segment of law.

Having read others comments on this thread, I'm obviously not the only person who thinks this is an entry about punishment rather than a comprehensive entry about the "fundamentals of law" -- and in fact, you seemed to agree with them on that.

>Then you're a better man than me, Mikey! Are you honestly telling me >that the reasoning behind the penalties for law-breaking is well >known to you? OK, when someone else lays it out, few people would >have a problem understanding, but this isn't the same as being >common knowledge. New discoveries are often obvious ... *after* >someone else explains them or points them out.

Yes, actually, this was well known to me (and to others, as I explain below). This "Aha, having seen it of course it makes sense" business does not seem to apply here. If you seriously think your entry qualifies as a "new discovery", I suggest you take a gander at textbooks and journal articles covering the subject over the last few centuries (I can provide you with a bibliography if this is necessary).

I further tested your assumption by assigning as an essay topic to 6th graders (11-12 year olds) in my English class, "Why does society punish people who break the law?" No discussion in class in advance, just used it as their weekly "write a 5 paragraph essay in an hour topic". They came up with the exact same reasons you did, with the addition of rehabilitation (which you have now added), revenge (in their words, "to make the victims feel better"), and financial reimbursement (i.e., "fine the guy to make him pay back what he stole or wrecked"). And no, I'm not trying to offend you by comparing you to a 12-year old. I'm just pointing out why I see the info in your entry as common knowledge. (And fyi, half my students are from abroad, mostly from asia, so it's not just an American thing).

>+ The whole entry isn't big enough to qualify for the term "vast", >let alone part of it.
>+ The *reasoning behind* the penalties for breaking laws is - in my >opinion - "expounding upon the philosophy or history or sociology of >law", as the title suggests.

Vast majority generally refers to "well over 50%", which in this case is accurate. The section on the penal system does entail approximately 82% of the word count. My point was that the penal system is only a small part of the philosophy/history/sociology of law, and hence the title was inaccurate.

>+ The only *opinion* I can find in the whole entry is the final >paragraph. Hardly the "vast majority", is it? The majority of this >small entry is concerned with the discussion of possible reasons for >the penalties for breaking laws. Unless such a discussion is fatally >flawed - perhaps by omitting to cover obvious points or points of >view - it is quite different from a mere expression of personal >opinion.

I guess this depends on how you define opinion. I've worked in both government and science -- in both fields opinion was defined as something that is not or cannot be backed up by fact. As such, philosophy is almost always related to opinion, which is why most philosophical entries in the edited guide have made the effort to cite other authors -- historians, philosophers, and the like -- so that the entry does not appear to be solely the opinion of the entry's author.

>It's all very well ending your comments with "just my 2 cents....", >but the fact of the matter is that my entry will never enter the >edited guide after what you have said. I suppose I asked for it.

Luckily for everyone, this isn't the way Peer Review works. There have been entries I have detested that have been accepted into the edited guide, and there have been entries I've loved that have languished. And if you notice, I didn't suggest that this entry be scrapped, or the like, I rather suggested that it need more development (hence the suggestion of the Writer's Workshop, the best place for such things).

I generally try to avoid making extensive suggestions for revisions in Peer Review (as that is *why* the writer's workshop was created), but as I have been criticized for not being constructive enough in my criticism, here would be my suggestions:

1) As others have said, change the title, so that it more accurately reflects the entry's emphasis on the penal system. Otherwise, go into a broader exploration of the first question.

2) If you want to make the focus on the fundamentals of law in general, possibly delve into the evolution of law? For example, "laws" governing physical safety and mating are generally the first to develop in any society, and can even be seen (on various levels) in some animal groups. The next to evolve may well be laws protecting property, and simple trade laws often flow from these. In a large and complex society, there are many laws which appear to have strayed from the original purpose of "protecting the members of the club", and focus more on financial matters. Laws in many societies exist to prevent behavior that, while not causing any actual harm, is seen as "immoral". I don't have the sources that delve into these matters with me here, but I do remember that both my general philosophy and "history of law" textbooks dealt with these issues.

3) If you want to keep the focus on the penal system, possibly discuss cultural differences? Maybe even the ways in which race, social status, and/or caste influence the punishment for any given crime? The ways in which the purpose and effect of the penalty varies with the crime? For example, while drug possession might be penalized here in the US with mandatory drug treatment (rehabilitation purpose), murder is most often penalized with long prison sentences (protect the remainder of society purpose). And while penalties for some crimes (especially the "white collar crimes") have been shown to be extremely effective at reducing recidivism, penalties for violent crimes are rarely effective at achieving the rehabilitation purpose.

Mikey

Other commentators have found some worth in this entry. However, it is clearly a *lot* less worthwhile or informative than I had hoped. There's no need for you to supply the bibliography you mention. This entry is withdrawn.

Pattern-chaser

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review Sin Bin' to 'Fundamentals of Law'.

Back to Entry - article deleted.