1. I agree with your general comments in respect of the introduction.

I would describe this as a

serviceable introduction to the work.
Thank you!

2. Your comments in respect of OSCOLA referencing in the first piece are all correct. Well done for
noticing these.
Thank you!

3. I notice that you feel that there are good examples of critical analysis in the first piece of work.
Could you direct me to perhaps one or two of these which you feel enhance the quality of the work? Do
you think that this work strikes a good balance in respect of descriptive and critical materials?
Overall, the first piece of work is much more descriptive than critical, so the balance could be optimised
here. I liked the critical reflexions on p. 2+6: “This suggests that whole life orders are important to address
the sentencing objective of public protection, as it would be unjust and unsafe to release a prisoner back into
society when he is likely to commit more serious crimes and be a significant risk to others. On the other hand, it
can be said that every prisoner has the opportunity to change and make reparations, however, a whole life
order does not take into account any rehabilitation a prisoner may have made.”; “Remarkably a number of
countries including Belarus, China and the United States of America still uphold the use of capital punishment.”

4. I think that perhaps your comments focus largely on the style of the work, rather than perhaps
the content of it? Could I ask you what you think of certain aspects of the writing style offered here? As an
example, consider this sentence on p.2 of the work: 'Remarkably, a number of countries, such as Belrus,
China and the United States still uphold the use of capital punishment'. What, if anything, does the use of
the word 'remarkably' tell us about the author's position in respect of capital punishment? Can you find
any other examples of this in the work?
Another example is the first I have given above in 3. The word “remarkably” tells us that the author is
of the opinion that capital punishment should already have been abolished in these countries. It
expresses his criticism.
5. Could you comment on the balance between primary and secondary sources in this first piece of
work? Do you think that the author has struck the best balance of these?
The author used a lot of primary sources and could have used more articles.
6. Could you comment on references 6, 11, 12 and 20 - do you think these are credible academic
sources? Could you explain why you think so?
No credible source, as in the blog there are no references to what the authors state. (I have to learn
to go more into detail here, thanks for giving that hint)
7. Do you think that this work relies on the most up-to-date source material?
No. It is obvious that there are only older references mentioned. I can see that the author of text 2
used more up-to-date material.
8. If you were giving this a mark out of 100, what would you give?
I have to admit I was about to give about 80, but with the remarks you made I realize it would be
only around 65 or 70.
9. I'm afraid that I must disagree with your analysis of the second piece, though I understand why
you think the things that you think
10. I think you have been a little harsh on the author in respect of the two allegations of plagiarism
you suggest. The first involves the author simply stating the decision of the case in Madison v Marbury.
This decision will have been cited in the case report itself and is likely taken directly from that report. The
fact that it has been repeated verbatim in other sources is not a surprise, nor really evidence of
plagiarism. The second suggestion relates to a sentence that pretty much any constitutional lawyer in the
UK would offer as a summary of the position in this particular instance. Again, the fact that other
constitutional lawyers offer it is not really evidence of plagiarism, but rather that it is a consensus
evaluative commentary on the point in issue.
Thanks for the extended explanation. I have to dig much deeper into this. I still have trouble
understanding where something is plagiarism and where not……

11. In respect of the extensive use of quotations, while I agree that this student probably overuses
these, the author of this work will have deliberately chosen to cite the words of the judges and authors
directly, rather than paraphrasing. For lawyers, this is usually best practice - it is not usually a good idea as
a lawyer to paraphrase. Can you offer an explanation as to why I might think this?
The reason is clear – when providing the exact quote, there is no risk of misinterpreting or
misunderstanding. I still think it is hard to read though, so, from a formal perspective I don’t like the
overuse but I thoroughly understand that it is best practice.

12. I respectfully disagree with your views on the criticality of the second piece. I found it much more
critical throughout. This is because the author makes a conscious point, routinely, to try and
consider both sides of the points that are pertinent to the topic area. Conclusions are then offered after a
consideration of these. This is excellent practice: one of the best ways to show that your conclusions are
valid is to take the opposing counterpoints and to highlight the weaknesses of these. The use of secondary
sources supports this: textbooks and journal articles especially are two valuable places where critical
comment is likely to be found and this author uses as lot more of these than the first.
On second sight I can entirely agree with you. One of my weaknesses is the overestimation of style,
grammar and orthographical correctness. I have difficulties to “see” the content, especially in a foreign
language, when a text is stuffed with errors. I will have to work on this and will stay more focused.

13. I agree with your comments in respect of the punctuation and other basic presentational errors.
Well done for spotting those.

Thank you very much. There were a lot of oversights on my side that I have the possibility to work on now
and this is very helpful in the optimisation of my knowledge and skills.

Best,

Karin