Italian Scientists Convicted Of Manslaughter, Sentenced To 6 Years In Jail, Over Earthquake They Failed To Predict Properly
from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept
A year and a half ago, we wrote about some Italian seismologists who were being tried for manslaughter after a risk assessment they wrote up, in which they concluded that a series of small earthquakes along a faultline wasn't that serious, and the risk of a big earthquake was not that high. About a week later, a 6.3 magnitude earthquake struck, destroying a bunch of buildings and killing over 300 people. Admittedly, one government official exaggerated what the report said, claiming that there was no danger -- but government officials have a way of taking a nuanced claim and turning it into a crazy absolute. Either way, because of all of this, the seismologists and the government official were charged with manslaughter -- especially after it was claimed that some people stayed inside during the quake, believing the recent reporting about there being no risk.Because of that, they've now been convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to six years in jail. This is despite the fact that the report quite clearly said that "earthquakes were unpredictable, and that building codes in the area needed to be adjusted to provide better seismic safety."
The conviction is tremendously troubling -- and the scientific community is quite rightly up in arms about it. Even more bizarre is that the judge didn't seem to care too much about the concerns everyone was raising. From John Timer's report:
The prosecution had attracted widespread condemnation from the scientific community, with one petition on behalf of the seismologists attracting over 5,000 signatures. But, shockingly, the judge in the case took only a few hours to deliver the verdict, and handed down sentences that were two years longer than those requested by the prosecutor.It seems like a fairly extreme theory of negligence that would lead one to decide that a "too tame" seismology report was negligent and resulted in manslaughter. And, of course, the chilling effects of such a ruling will be tremendous. Who will be willing to provide such a report in the future? And, if anyone does, won't they now err on the side of "we're all going to die!!" even if the evidence doesn't support that? It's not surprising that people want to spread blame around when there are tragic deaths, but sometimes it goes way, way too far.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: earthquakes, italy, manslaughter, predictions
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blame Culture
These days it usually goes too far. The tragic result is that the real causes get neglected.
All the effort that goes into these legal cases would be far better spent trying to work out why the forecasts were so far wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blame Culture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blame Culture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politician-"Scientists said 'Don't worry be happy!'"
{Big Earthquake,(possibly out of code??) houses collapse}
Italy-"Scientists didn't scare the Politician into a knee-jerk reaction! Arrest them for their panic-less results!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is the culture of risky management in action. Managers (politicians in this case) take foolish risks because their incentives are bad. If all goes well (most likely), the managers look good for having taken the risk. If things go badly (unlikely), someone else takes the loss. The managers want to look good, so provided they can be assured that someone else takes the loss, then it is in the manager's interest to take the risk. Many disasters have been caused by this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good riddance to those godless scientists with their evolution, birth control, genetic tampering, and wasting of time looking at the stars.
If you can't trust scientists to predict something simple like an earthquake, then how could you trust them to predict something big like a tsunami, a plague, or an asteroid impact?
Let them leave the predicting of disasters to religious prophets -- who have a much better track record.
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe the Courts can go after this judge for his ruling causing major deaths when an earthquake does hit and everyone is too scared to give even a qualified warning.
One thing I wonder is if this judge actually lost anyone in the quake, maybe that is why he has made such a crazy ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Governments have created it...
Don't look for improvement or change, it will not come, we're headed down a horrible route and unfortunately for us common people we're going to be left out in the cold by our 'superiors' when push comes to shove.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Report.....
Course with that report I'll be negligent for inciting panic and rioting right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Causality Be Damned!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Examples such as a school dormitory collapsing that was in italy news. After just being inspected with the engineer signing off the building was safe in spite of the cracking structure, it collapsed not much later.
Note: Europe handles it's professional engineers differently than the US in alot of ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder...
Its scapegoating. Politicians are scared that someone would hold them responsible for the deaths of those killed by the quake so they made a preemptive strike by holding someone else responsible first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder...
Your level of insight is simply stunning. How do you do it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Judge is an idiot
I could probably demonstrate scientifically why staying indoors during an earthquake is safer than everyone rushing for the exits while the building is being shaken off of it's foundation. In fact the denser the population, the worse you do trying to get outside during a quake. Being trapped for a few days is actually a worst case of being inside. Most buildings don't collapse entirely in most quakes, meaning you'll ride it out inside, then crawl or even walk out after it's over.
Getting pelted by building materials, live electrical wires, dodging cars that are moving around uncontrolled, and getting sliced by falling glass are just a few of the things you need to worry about by running outside.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Judge is an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are 4 outcomes here, 2 of them bad, 1 is great and 1 is so-so
So there is a 50% chance of going to jail for 6 years, a 25% chance of being a hero or 25% chance of going unnoticed. I don't like those odds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There are 4 outcomes here, 2 of them bad, 1 is great and 1 is so-so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There are 4 outcomes here, 2 of them bad, 1 is great and 1 is so-so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There are 4 outcomes here, 2 of them bad, 1 is great and 1 is so-so
If they are right, then they also would be blamed.
Change your statistics to:
75% chance of going to jail for 6 years.
25% chance of going unnoticed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There are 4 outcomes here, 2 of them bad, 1 is great and 1 is so-so
(the emphasis makes it better) :-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There are 4 outcomes here, 2 of them bad, 1 is great and 1 is so-so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There are 4 outcomes here, 2 of them bad, 1 is great and 1 is so-so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sad reflection on Italian education
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The sad thing is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) Make sure all reports say some version of "We are all going to die!"
2) The instant anyone quotes or references the report in any way IMMEDIATELY send a DMCA takedown notice insisting the information is copyrighted and can not be used.
Problem solved! With any luck the website mentioning the report will be seized by the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Acts of God not covered by this warranty
Perhaps a nice, quiet life studying more theoretical sciences, such as quantum thoery, would be less risky for today's wannabe scientist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Acts of God not covered by this warranty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abortion of justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it then happens, the risk (probablility of it happening) should have been 100%. Rare events can never happen by pure random chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, but they can happen do to circumstances outside our ability to measure and make meaningful predictions from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you then draw one, the probability of drawing a royal flush must have been 100%. Rare events can never happen by pure random chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the fact that something did happen doesn't suddenly mean the probability should have been 100%
the probability remains precisely the same, whatever the outcome.
calculating the probability of an earthquake is difficult because we don't understand or know how to measure all the parameter which lead to earthquakes
probability of 100% means no other outcome is possible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you see a difference between failing to predict and categorically telling people they are safe in homes?
Small tremors happen often in this region and people always spend nights outside in case earth was moving. They didnt after that press conference because SCIENTISTS TOLD THEM THEY ARE SAFE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The scientists convicted said "there's no scientific evidence to support these claims.
Politician uses the report of those scientists to say "scientists say there's nothing to worry about."
Do you see the difference between what you're saying and what actually happened?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you see a difference between failing to predict and categorically telling people they are safe in homes?
Small tremors happen often in this region and people always spend nights outside in case earth was moving. They didnt after that press conference because SCIENTISTS TOLD THEM THEY ARE SAFE.
Except that's not what happened. Scientists said "Hey, it's a low risk, but just to be safe, maybe you should shore things up a bit." And a government official read that report, turned around to the people and said "Hey, it's all good, nothing to worry about."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The people convicted here never stated there would not be an earthquake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
if he said "little earthquakes did not man a big earthquake"..
instead of saying little earthquakes do not ALWAYS mean big earthquakes.
the first statement your quote is wrong, because often little earthquakes DO mean a big quake is coming..
that is not the same as saying little quakes did not mean a big quake is coming,, .... incorrect..
scientists have to be as correct as they can be within their level of expertise.
saying little quakes did not meak a big quake was coming is wrong..
saying little quakes does not always mean a big quake is coming BUT OFTEN DOES MEAN A BIG QUAKE IS COMING.. is more accurate and correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, it means no such thing. Using "often" here is contrafactual and would be a lie coming from a scientist or government authority.
This is a perfectly valid statement.
A distinction without a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course the ruling could be applied the other way. Said scientist writes a "We're all going to die"-report.. people panic and results in deaths.. Scientist charged with manslaughter.
More chilling is it will cause a complete halt to all scientific reports.. why put anything in writing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But this case is clearly a big abuse and misuse of that law, there is no negligence in writing a scientific paper, especially one that didn't give the conclusion the media reported.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's face it, lawyers have found it's a lot easier for process servers to deliver documents to those mortals rather than Zeus or God.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How the fuck does one even arrive at such a conclusion as this? This is beyond absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's face it, lawyers have found it's a lot easier for process servers to deliver documents to those mortals rather than Zeus or God.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Much more important in Italy -- indeed a massive, systemwide problem, that needs jail sentences -- is corruption in the enforcement of building standards. That costs real lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smart scientists...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all fun an games until....
Environmental impact, global warming, fracking, evolution, GMO studies, rehabilitation vs incarceration, sex education...these are all issues and topics where the science runs counter to the Republican/Right-Wing platform. What better way to eliminate the message than to eliminate the messenger?
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's all fun an games until....
It is exactly like accusing a neighbor of witchcraft when someone gets sick. Which still goes on today in some parts of Africa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having an earthquake then occur does not falsify the original probability. It is only one new data point. To know this probability was a mistake, you have to repeat the experiment a few hundred times.
And if you could do that (say by the year 2500), there would be a consensus probability, it would be agreed by most scientists, it would form the basis for public policy, and disagreeing with it (done by a minority) would not endanger anyone.
But lacking such a consensus, it appears that the judge is engaging in just the kind of cowboy risk assessment that he's accusing the geologists of.
If such a scientific consensus does later emerge, then by his own logic, the judge is guilty of false imprisonment -- and not protected by any kind of professional shield for an honest mistake in the face of uncertainty.
Or -- has such a consensus perhaps already emerged among geologists? That is, do the 5000 geologists who signed the petition believe not only that scientific opinions deserve protection, but that in fact, there was a low probability of a quake in the given situation?
If so, then to be consistent, Italian justice must jail the judge for causing harm by misinterpreting a scientific statement.
The only alternative would be to issue international arrest warrants for up to 5000 geologists in cities around the globe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Vatican actually funds a lot of science. Also the Vatican is an independent nation, so it's not clear that scientists working for the Vatican could be persecuted under the dumb Italian legal system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I forecast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I forecast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly. If I were an Italian seismologist, I'd put the government on notice that it has seen the last prediction from me, as I won't be risking prison time for failing to predict the unpredictable in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Job Openings
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all OK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1, he says there is no great danger, big earthquake comes and is charged for manslaughter.
2, he says "RUN AWAY" great danger, big earthquake does not happen, he is sued for the massive cost of the unnessary evacuation.
scientist takes a line from homer Simpson..
"Geezz, I would really love to want to help you"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is his quote on TV.
If it can be established that sometimes little quakes ARE a sign of an impending big quake, then you can argue that they scientists provided scientifically incorrect advice..
it can easily be established that often big quakes start with smaller quakes before the big one, both before and after the main quake.
To be scientifically correct they should of stated:
Yes, it is a good sign that there are small quakes as SOMETIMES this will relieve the pressure and reduce the chance of a big quake occuring, BUT small quakes are also a precursor to a much large event.
small quakes are non-indicative of the odds of a large quake occuring, take appropriate precausions. Earthquakes are unpredictable."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And what about the Church?
Maybe they are next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Earthquake in Pakistan and Afghanistan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“