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

Dear PTB (Powers That Be):

A fruitful exchange of views has progressed about the front page entry:

'Let Him Have It!' - The Case of Bentley and Craig - A9115229
and the thread:
Wrong case to make the argument - 2500896

Quite apart from discussion of the case and the value or lack of valueof the death penalty, Delicia - The world's acutest kitten - U196659 noted that the piece seemed unusually one-sided for the H2G2 editing guidelines. Perhaps it was a failure of PR, but it should be addressed, nonetheless.

Rather than being balanced, it begins by ridiculing pro-death-penalty as drunken windbags. It goes on to describe a case of armed robbery that resulted in the death of a policeman as an example of a miscarraige of the justice system (perhaps not so well chosen for this task).

Throughout, it attempts to elicit sympathies for the executed 19-year-old, calls the 'a miscarriage of justice so notorious...', the legal argument 'tenuous', those who wanted justice as 'mainly out of a bloodthirsty desire for revenge'.

It tells of at least three entirely unrelated stories from one of the criminals' childhood and invokes his 'developmental problem'. Apparently, the lad had a prior arrest for 'breaking into a store' that was neither connected to the crime under discussion or his partner.

It then suggest the spurious advise that 'The defence counsel could have argued that Bentley's 'common purpose' had ended when he had been arrested.' The author is obviously not legally trained to make that suggestion.

Was it a miscarraige of justice? Possibly. But the entry is not the un-biased, balanced entry I expect on h2g2.

If you can revisit the article to correct the highly slanted entry, it would help restore the misimpression some will take away, that h2g2 is only unbiased when it suits them. I know better. I'm convinced that this just seemed to slip through somehow.

Have you considered writing a counterpoint article?

Croz:

That's not the point, is it? I don't have information about the case and could not write a credible entry on it. I understood it to be h2g2 policy that EG entries not be one sided, that they must be balanced.

If you're telling me that any personal opinion rant qualifies as EG material, either you or I had better re-read the guidelines, perhaps both of us.

You are the editors, the guardians in charge of this site. You should also refrain from favoritism, despite the personalities involved and the subject matter.

If you read the entry and still do not feel that it is a one-voice diatribe, please pass my concern on to a more experience h2g2 editor.

Thanks,

Traveller in Time waiting for the announcement
"Congratulations 'Croz' at becoming the new Italic

My opinion in these matters (as 'just another Researcher') is to give a balance in writing the counterpoit entry. Though I must admit I am not the best writer for this too. "

> You are the editors, the guardians in charge of this site. You should also refrain from favoritism, despite the personalities involved and the subject matter.

Um, I'm not an ed. Just a poor shmo who once again thought he was doing the right thing by making a helpful suggestion. One of these days I'll learn not to be helpful.

Thanks.

Sorry, Croz:

I didn't mean to be so harsh. I read my own note and was surprised at my lack of tact. When I was thinking it, it did not sound so terse and upset, I was just rushing to leave the house.

I understand that all of us hootooers have our roles and limitations. I wrongly assumed that an ed had responded to my note.

My apologies for all of this, though I would still like to have the entry re-examined for Guidelines fitness.

You are being helpful, btw. Just getting a quick response is helpful; even if it only helps to clarify my concerns.

The best to you both,

Hiya Traveller!

Didn't mean to ignore you. I may make the same mistake; and, if I do, I hope you'll both be around to remind me of my responsibility to be fair and cover both sides of an issue!