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.

8 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.

  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:Amanda Knox? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not if you hire Cheney's lawyers.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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