Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Manslaughter Conviction Overturned For Scientists Who Didn't Predict Earthquake

Posted by Soulskill on from the but-their-crystal-ball-has-been-confiscated dept.

Jason Koebler writes: Geologists who didn't warn a town about an impending earthquake are not murderers, an Italian appeals court ruled today. A 2012 decision that rocked the scientific world has been overturned, according to Italy's Repubblica newspapers and confirmed by other Italian outlets. In that decision, six prominent geologists and one government worker were convicted of manslaughter for failing to notify the town of L'Aquila of a 2009 earthquake that killed at least 309 people. The scientists were originally sentenced to six years in prison and were to pay more than $10 million in damages.

26 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. They can be tried again, I think? by mmell · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Unlike the US system, I believe Italian authorities are free to refile this if they don't like the appeals court ruling?

    Try them again, I say! That'll show 'em. They'll think twice before becoming scientists in Italy.

    1. Re: They can be tried again, I think? by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2

      You act as if it is a problem with their government, and not a cultural problem with the Italian people.

      In any case, the Italian court sense of morality is flawed (or their legal system doesn't fit with morality...). The geologists have a moral obligation to not harm, not to save, though saving the town would have been admirable.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    2. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by SternisheFan · · Score: 2

      Those seismologists have left Italy for good. They pulled out, took their equipment and won't be sharing their data with the Italian scientists. I don't blame them.

    3. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unlike the US system, I believe Italian authorities are free to refile this if they don't like the appeals court ruling?

      I can't speak with 100% certainty of Italy, but generally here in Europe they can not refile. However the trial process is not ended until neither side wants to appeal or the appeal possibilities are exhausted. That means you can get acquitted at trial court and the prosecutor appeals, acquitted at appeals court and the prosecutor appeals, the supreme court might say the law was applied wrong and remand it back to the appeals court where you're ultimately convicted. I guess the idea is that a higher court will do a more thorough review and thus its judgement is more valid than the lower court, even if it's to your disadvantage. If you get acquitted and the appeal limit which here is two weeks expires then that is final even if they find the murder weapon with your prints on it three weeks later.

      I'll use a gun analogy since that'll probably appeal to US folks. The first trial is like a hip shot, asking both parties "Are you both in agreement with this ruling?" and if both agree then okay. Second trial they take a good aim and ask "Are you still disputing this ruling?" and if yes they put a sniper rifle on a bench and say "This is going to hit so dead center as possible, final ruling. No more appeals." as opposed to the US system where if you can fool one judge once you're off the hook, no matter how ill considered and legally unsound that judgement was. I think we still acquit more people than in the US, there you get really slammed for using your day in court instead of taking the plea bargain, even if you don't really think you're guilty.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      This is why all the smart Italians already live in the United States.

    5. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by cpotoso · · Score: 2

      Have you eaten in Italy vs. in Germany? Enough said.

    6. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Plea bargains are a legal abomination. The fact you can get a traumatized guy who came home and found his wife strangled by a burglar and say "Take the plea bargain and get 20 years in jail for something you do, or risk capital punishment if you cant convince the jury your innocent.

      That is *fucked*, because so many people who probavbly could have proved their innocence will take the 20 years rather than risk getting slain by the state.

    7. Re:They can be tried again, I think? by curious.corn · · Score: 2

      German beer - surprisingly - doesn't hold a candle against british, belgian and lately dutch craft beers. Seriously...

      --
      Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
  2. SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · · Score: 5, Informative

    Will you ever get it right? Will you ever get the fucking title right?
    They did not fail to predict.
    They said we (yes, i was there at the time) could stay home since the likelihood of a strong earthquake was not heightened by the preceeding MONTHS-long swarm.

    1. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "could stay home since the likelihood of a strong earthquake was not heightened by the preceeding MONTHS-long swarm."

      And that was, and still is, the correct scientific conclusion. A conclusion supported by thousands of scientists world-wide: the occurrence of the earthquake swarm neither increased, nor decreased, the probability of a major earthquake. What part of "we can't predict the timing of major earthquakes" are you failing to understand?

      If anyone was at fault it was municipal authorities who let people continue to live in centuries-old substandard buildings when they knew that someday, eventually, a major quake would happen just as it had happened previously in L'Aquila over the centuries. The earthquake swarm was irrelevant to that risk, which was still there as always. When the scientists told people to go home, it was go home to the same non-zero risk of a major quake that you face every day you live there.

    2. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But that's not what they said. They said the risk had not changed because of the earthquake swarm. That's very different from saying there's no risk. No sane scientist would say there was no risk of earthquakes anywhere in Italy. It's a tectonically active area. There is ALWAYS a risk.

      It's like saying that an earthquake isn't going to happen in California tomorrow. NOBODY is going to say that for any reason, because there is no reason why one couldn't happen tomorrow no matter what happened today, earthquake swarm or not.

      Large commercial airplane crashes are also rare. If there was a crash of a small plane yesterday, would you say that the risk of a major plane crash today was increased? There's no reason to expect any link. If someone asked a flight attendant "In light of the small plane that crashed at this airport yesterday, is the risk of a major plane crash today increased?" They'd probably say "no". That doesn't mean they'd say there is no risk. People might be worried because the thought of a plane crash was foremost in their thoughts thanks to the previous day's events. But there's no *rational* reason to expect an increased risk.

      So if the plane crashed, would you sue the flight attendant for manslaughter for misleading the passenger into thinking there was no risk? No, you'd say the passenger was not listening carefully.

      Why is this so hard to understand?

    3. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Informative

      Will you ever get it right? Will you ever get the fucking title right?
        They did not fail to predict.
        They said we (yes, i was there at the time) could stay home since the likelihood of a strong earthquake was not heightened by the preceeding MONTHS-long swarm.

      And the distinction is?

      If there was a well established method for predicting earthquakes that they ignored. Sure, fine then.
      But there's no current way to predict earthquakes that isn't better than a divining rod. So you have to fall back on statistics which say you're probably safer staying home. Thousands of people tracking half way across the country are more likely to get hurt on the road than in an earthquake at home.

    4. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the distinction is?

      The distinction is that they didn't know if it was safer or not, so they should have said "we don't know" in the most reassuring way possible. Instead they tried to look smarter than they were and ended up being badly wrong.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by hendrips · · Score: 2

      And they were exactly right to do so. There is no scientifically accepted method to reliably predict earthquakes. There no scientifically accepted method to reliably predict increases in major earthquake risk over short periods of time. Period.

      I work in the property & casualty insurance field. You seem to think that these seismologists should have known about some sort of method to detect an increased risk of a major earthquake. Can you tell me what this method is?

      Seriously, if you could give my employer a method that reliably calculates increases in earthquake risk based on recent seismic activity, they would pay you 10 billion dollars. I am not even slightly joking about this.

  3. Amanda Knox? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Let's hope they also overturn the Amanda Knox conviction. The evidence against her is rather weak. It appears she did lie, but perhaps because she was scared and was trying not to get framed by spinning her story. Reduce her sentence to lying in court, which she already spent the time for, anyhow.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Amanda Knox? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not if you hire Cheney's lawyers.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Amanda Knox? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Yes. Plea bargains are also torture. They threaten greater harm if you don't confess. That's the original definition of torture. The harm wasn't the torture, the threat of harm for not confessing was torture.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
  4. phew! by PaulMattSutter · · Score: 2

    As a scientist, I can breathe a sigh of relief: I can finally go back to not double-chorking my results!

  5. Re: Welcome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's important to understand; and you have to spend serious time with Google translate or reading the Italian to get this; they weren't charged for failing to predict. They were charged for predicting there wouldn't be an earthquake. They said that there was no special likelihood of it even though several signs pointed to a raised probability.

    The conviction may be wrong, however it's nowhere near as stupid as people are making out.

  6. Re: Welcome! by brantondaveperson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And if there hadn't been one, then they would have been right. What's your point? Just because there was no special likelihood of an earthquake doesn't actually mean that there won't be one, does it? The whole episode is total nonsense.

  7. Re: Welcome! by gweihir · · Score: 2

    It actually is exceedingly stupid, not for the specific situation itself, but for the greater ramifications. It is better to even have mediocre geologists looking at the possibility of earthquakes than to not have any at all. With manslaughter convictions like the one in question, no sane geologist will work on earthquake predictions anymore an _that_ is what would result in massively more casualties and what makes this verdict so stupid.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  8. Re: Welcome! by curious.corn · · Score: 2

    In the phone conversation between Bertolaso (head of the italian "FEMA") and Daniela Stasi (councilor of the Abbruzo regional government) of 3.30.2009 recorded by the investigators: "... we have decided to hold a meeting there in L'Aquila... in order to shut up any idiot, appease... I send them to L'Aquila, it's a media stunt... these guys who are the maximum authorities in earthquakes will say: business as usual, these phenomena happen, better to have one hundred tremors at Richert scale 4 that nothing, because one hundred quakes remove energy, and there will never be a big one, the one that hurts, you understand !?..."

    Nobody ever accused these scientists of having failed to do the rain dance, but of having prostituted themselves.

    --
    Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
  9. Re: Welcome! by curious.corn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nope, that wasn't the problem. The issue was that a bunch of corrupt politicos were fed up of the clamor that a "quack" (Giampaolo Gioacchino Giuliani) was making about his Radon monitoring stations and the coming of a big quake, so they summoned these scientists and organized a media blitz to discredit and call out the guy.

    People heaved a sigh of relief, stopped sleeping in their cars and went back to their homes. Many died under the rubble a couple days later.

    Sane geologists still have no good reason to remain in Italy, unless you're ok to be commanded and manipulated by filthy politicos.

    --
    Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
  10. the real issue by jjohn_h · · Score: 2

    The scientists did not stand accused of failing to warn against an earthquake. Not at all. Legend.

    They were accused to have encouraged the town of Aquila to disregard threatening tremors and stay safely at home.

    The town followed 'their' recommendation against the century old habits in an earthquake-prone region to run out and wait in the open air. Result was more then 300 deads.

    The appeal court has decided that the fatal recommendations did not come from the scientists but from the inept, corrupt, opportunistic bureaucracy. Doubts about this version linger on.

  11. Misleading title by mgf64 · · Score: 2

    Actually the summary is an invention. They were accused of stating that there was no possibility of harm, that people should have remained at home. I.e.: they released false and fatally flawed recommendations for political reasons. It was well known that the region was at risk due to historical evidence.

  12. Re: Welcome! by jafiwam · · Score: 2

    It's important to understand; and you have to spend serious time with Google translate or reading the Italian to get this; they weren't charged for failing to predict. They were charged for predicting there wouldn't be an earthquake. They said that there was no special likelihood of it even though several signs pointed to a raised probability.

    The conviction may be wrong, however it's nowhere near as stupid as people are making out.

    Just wait a while.

    They'll try them again three more times, twice in absentia, and once including the maids and the guys that fixed their cars.

    Italian "courts" are a laughing stock, only useful for being mocked, nothing more than third world idiots now.