Manslaughter Conviction Overturned For Scientists Who Didn't Predict Earthquake

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.

Comments

They can be tried again, I think?

[mmell]

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.

Re:They can be tried again, I think?

[Kjella]

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.

SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[lesincompetent]

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.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[Charliemopps]

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.

Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Amanda Knox?

[Tablizer]

Not if you hire Cheney's lawyers.

Re: Welcome!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Welcome!

[brantondaveperson]

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.

Re: Welcome!

[curious.corn]

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.