Manslaughter Conviction Overturned For Scientists Who Didn't Predict Earthquake 139
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.
Re: Welcome! (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.
Re: Welcome! (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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, be
Re: (Score:2)
I take offense... being Italian.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if there hadn't been one, then they would have been right.
Wrong.
Just because there was no special likelihood of an earthquake doesn't actually mean that there won't be one, does it?
In fact, there was special likelihood of an earthquake. You may now try again. Read around this thread for citations, there are several links.
Re: (Score:2)
You may now try again.
Thank you.
In fact, there was special likelihood of an earthquake.
Is this true? We know an earthquake occurred, but this is far from a statement about the 'likelihood' of that earthquake, isn't it? Isn't it the case that most large earthquakes aren't preceded by anything out of the ordinary? And that most sequences of small earthquakes do not culminate in a large event - except insofar as that large event occurs eventually?
The earthquake in NZ that killed 185 people in February of 2011 was a large aftershock - there is no dispute that a large event will always c
Re: (Score:1)
In fact, there was special likelihood of an earthquake.
Is this true?
Yes. There had been smaller "warning" shakes. As a matter of fact, there have been families who were going to leave l'Aquila as a precaution, and changed their minds after hearing an appeal to keep calm and stay home, on the radio. That was narrated by survivors. There had been some political pressure, aimed at keeping order, to have those scientists sign that appeal. No illicit deals were proved, and even if there had been any, they can be considered part of Berlusconi's style of administration. Gover
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. There had been smaller "warning" shakes
No. There is no reason to believe that smaller shakes are warnings. None whatsoever. That there was a subsequent deadly earthquake is a terrible tragedy, but it does not change the fact that small shakes are not a predictor of large earthquakes.
If those families had left l'Aquila, then one presumes that they would have returned at some point. If a large earthquake had not occurred by that point, but did shortly thereafter, would the scientists still be at fault?
Actually, upon re-reading your reply, I'm not
Re: (Score:1)
I think we all agree that predicting earthquakes (or weather, or stock exchange, for that matter) is not an exact science.
Actually, upon re-reading your reply, I'm not sure what you were actually arguing.
An expert's prediction —especially if officially appointed— should be solely based on her or his knowledge and beliefs, free from external pressure, lobbying, or prejudice. Scientists who are in conflict of interest because their opinions are too intertwined with their wishes should either stay silent or explain their position clearly. Legally, appointed experts who (ab)use
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: Welcome! (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
i seem to remember them saying there was no raised probability and based on the scientific consensus on the matter there was no raised probability. There was a single guy that was saying that there was an increased probability of quakes from prior signs. In other words, 99/100 geologist you asked would have said the same thing as the convicted.
The problem was that the scientists said that a quake was "unlikely" and the Governmental liaison with the public took that to mean that everything was fine so he s
Re: (Score:2)
The conviction can not be any stupider as it was the stupidest case ever brought to trail - stupid even for Italy's notoriously fickle justice system.
NO ONE CAN PREDICT EARTHQUAKES.
They said, rightly,that the recent "swarm" of small quakes did not increase the risk of a big quake. They never said there was no risk. The area has a a higher than normal risk for quakes which was never denied. Government officials did want to shut up a technician that was predicting a big quake due to radon reading - a met
Re: (Score:2)
They can be tried again, I think? (Score:5, Interesting)
Try them again, I say! That'll show 'em. They'll think twice before becoming scientists in Italy.
Amanda Knox? (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.
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't that torture?
Re:Amanda Knox? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if you hire Cheney's lawyers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're tortured to get a plea bargain, a plea bargain is not torture. It is often coercion, and can be wrong for all those sorts of non-torturous reasons. But threatening someone with jail unless they accept a plea bargain is not torture -- that just waters down the definition of torture.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're tortured to get a plea bargain, a plea bargain is not torture.
Define "torture". Threat of pain/punishment to extract a confession was the original definition of it (from the Inquisition), and that's what a plea bargain is. "You will be anally raped if you don't confess" is not an uncommon torture statement. That in the Inquisition their threats of pain were immediately replaced by actual pain doesn't change the meaning of the word, just the context.
Re: (Score:1)
She's already publicly stated that she will never return to the Italian court system. Currently she's a reporter for a small newspaper.
Re: (Score:2)
After sleep deprivation torture, people will say anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that if they do refile though, it'll give incentive for scientists and other intellectuals to move, and with the EU rules allowing one from a member-state to live anywhere within the EU, it would probably be an easier choice to leave if one's work could be interpreted this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I don't know why anyone lives in Italy. With the EU free movement rules, it's a wonder the whole damned country didn't pick up and move to Germany
Re: (Score:1)
Because the Turks were in the way?
Re: (Score:1)
ONce again, the Ottoman Empire gets the blame! My scimitars are vibrating out frustration every time our great Empire is blamed for the scuffles between the Christians in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.
Re: (Score:2)
Suleiman plz go
Re: They can be tried again, I think? (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Their argument was that the geologists said that the risk was low, which then caused harm because people trusted them and didn't prepare for the earthquake. If they had stayed quiet they would not have been blamed, but they actually made a prediction in language that conveyed some certainty.
If there is a lesson here it's that if you are not 100% sure and lives are at risk you should err on the side of caution.
Re: (Score:2)
Their argument was that the geologists said that the risk was low, which then caused harm because people trusted them and didn't prepare for the earthquake. If they had stayed quiet they would not have been blamed, but they actually made a prediction in language that conveyed some certainty.
If there is a lesson here it's that if you are not 100% sure and lives are at risk you should err on the side of caution.
Do you ever travel by airplane? Did you know a NON ZERO number of planes crash every year? And, by getting on a plane you take a risk of getting shredded and burned in a crash?
Plane travel, despite the possible end-game, is still VERY SAFE.
Gonna try to throw me in jail now if you get in a crash? Idiot?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Absolutely! Go Germany every day of the week!
I have been to both countries multiple times and the germans win on food and beer every single time. They lose horribly on the wine though.
Re: (Score:3)
German beer - surprisingly - doesn't hold a candle against british, belgian and lately dutch craft beers. Seriously...
Re: (Score:2)
Times must have changed then. I lived in the UK in the early 2000s and I never managed to get on with the beers there.
I have always liked the pale German beers. I was back there in 2012 as part of a multi-country trip and I loved the food.
Truth be told though I am not the biggest beer drinker so it is lost on me. I prefer my wine.
Re: (Score:2)
German beer - surprisingly - doesn't hold a candle against british, belgian and lately dutch craft beers. Seriously...
And yet the "best beer in the world" comes from California. Seriously...
We're better at wine, we're better at beer, we're better at cheese. The only thing we're not better at is modesty, as proven by all our nudist camps. Or paying our bills, but you red states are sucking down our tax money hardcore for stuff we can't even afford.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. German beer is different, not worse. They have their own traditions which they follow, often with religious fervour. While this limits the diversity in beer types, it does not diminish the quality. There are many good beers to be had in Germany which you'll be hard-pressed to find elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I try to be. I just love their food. A love things like the venison and the boar. Their Schnitzels and sausages and their heavy heavy breads.
It just sits well with me.
Perhaps as well a big factor is that my experiences in Germany have always been positive. I have always got on well with the people and the place. My experiences in Italy have left a lot to be desired. To the point that on one of our trips through Italy we decided after a week we had had enough and drove to Austria for a break.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did a 10 week motorcycle trip around Europe with my now wife. We camped our way from Spain to Greece and every where in between. In Greece I got horribly horribly lost and asked for directions from some construction guys upgrading a road. When I couldn't understand their directions due to language barriers they jumped in a car and said follow us. They drove 20 minutes out of their way to get me to the next town.
In Hungry I broke the charger for our digital camera. I walked into an electronic shop and
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. I guess it comes down to taste. I'm not obese, at least not last time I checked any way. I just prefer the food types. Italian food as a genre has lots and lots of options and pizza is a top ranked contender for favourite food. But I love the richness of German foods. And my experiences of eating in both countries has always been more pleasurable in Germany.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:They can be tried again, I think? (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?
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.
In the US, the State gets ONE shot. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We like it that way here.
The one shot thing is good. The plea bargaining thing is insanely awful.
Re: In the US, the State gets ONE shot. (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is why all the smart Italians already live in the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the US
SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:1)
I'm glad someone pointed this out. I don't know why no one can get this right. There is a huge difference between failing to predict something would happen, and predicting that something IS NOT going to happen.
Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (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?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this so hard to understand?
Because they did not sit there and say that the risk had not changed and there was no way to know if there would be an earthquake or not. If they had kept saying that or just never had their press conference to begin with, they would have been fine. In previous /. stories on there, there were the transcripts of the public meeting. They started off by saying that there was no way to tell if there was any way to tell if there would be an earthquake or not, but under the pressure of public questioning to answe
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You may repeat as many times you want that but you may easilly deduct from the 1st grade conviction that if the earthquake did not happen they would not be indicted and their behaviour would have been considered appropriate.
It's easy to point out the wrong information *after* the facts....
What they said was that the seismic swarm was not indicative of a strong earthquake coming. So, if the population was fine before the long seismic swarm they do not have any reason to be more alarmed than usual and thus th
Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (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.
Re: (Score:2)
when there's no consensus on the matter one way or the other, you'll have people saying both things.
I don't think there's a consensus that earthquake swarms predict large earthquakes. But it's always better to be prepared than not, so everybody should say, "we don't know, but make sure you're ready"
Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, I think the conviction was ridiculous but the scientists don't get off scot free either. They said reassuring things in public that they shouldn't have, and I think a fair bit of ego got in the way; scientists do have egos too.
Re: (Score:2)
they didn't say a damn thing, the government official reinterpreted their words and said on their behalf.
Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know they ended up being badly wrong?
Do you have some information that shows that small earthquake swarms lead to a greater chance of a big earthquake?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The people died. They were wrong.
Did the scientists say that an earthquake would not happen? Can you point to specific statements by the geologists that there was no risk of an earthquake?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the only guy who was overzealous in his declaration was Bernardo De Bernardinis, who claimed that "there was no danger" - and, still, this is far from being comparable to manslaughter.
I never said that it was. It's still irresponsible and unacceptable behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
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 em
Re: (Score:2)
:) fuck, if the insurance providers don't think there's a reliable way, then yeah... there's no fucking way to predict earthquakes.
When real money gets involved, all the bullshit falls away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
apparently he's predicted a lot of other earthquakes before. and this is the first one that actually came to pass.
phew! (Score:2)
Never out of style (Score:1)
Looking for a scapegoat is never out of style. Also look how politicians from Maine handled Ebola quarantine. Scientifically she was Ebola free however it was a better political move to act as if there was danger, just in case.
Re: (Score:2)
:) quarantine to avoid spreading a disease, or quarantine to avoid a panic. Both are valid in my opinion.
We're not all scientists, and therein lies the problem no? you must account for the less scientifically literate members of a population too.
Of course they aren't... (Score:1)
Who in their right mind would judge them for a natural occurrence... It might be their job, but they aren't Gods either.
Re: (Score:2)
Failing to predict wasn't the problem. (Score:1)
The main problem was that they denied the risk of an earthquake.
The problem started when a hobby earthquake guy watched measurements and noticed increased activity. He then wrote online about increased stress and that a big earthquake was imminent. People panicked and started fleeing the city. The later convicted people then showed up in public as national experts to tell people that there would not be an earthquake, people should return home and resume normal life. The earthquake then hit less than a week.
Randy Marsh is a bad role model (Score:1)
the real issue (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, opportuni
Misleading title (Score:2)
-3K Years, They Got Off Lightly (Score:1)
Versus Three Thousand Years Ago.
We all know would have happened to false prophets!
Re: (Score:2)
So, basically, we should criminally prosecute anyone whose views disagree with your political biases?
Re: (Score:2)
How would this be different from current law in most, if not all, nations?
Re: (Score:2)