Italian Court Acquits Scientists Of Manslaughter Charges Incurred After Failing To Predict Deadly Earthquake
from the pitchforks-and-courtrooms dept
It seemed like something from The Onion… or Monty Python: scientists jailed for not predicting the 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila, Italy. Because their risk assessment delivered six days before the quake "failed" to prevent the earthquake from occurring, Judge Marco Billi decided all six scientists were guilty of manslaughter due to their "superficial, approximate and generic" analysis. They weren't held responsible for all 300+ deaths, but specifically for the 29 deaths of people who stayed in their homes (rather than venturing out) because they believed there was "no risk" of an earthquake.Some sanity has finally prevailed, over three years since the post-earthquake insanity struck. [h/t to Techdirt reader wereisjessicahyde]
Six seismologists accused of misleading the public about the risk of an earthquake in Italy were cleared of manslaughter on 10 November. An appeals court overturned their six-year prison sentences and reduced to two years the sentence for a government official who had been convicted with them.We'll get back to that last sentence in a moment, but let us first note that sanity hasn't completely prevailed.
The finding by a three-judge appeals court prompted many L’Aquila citizens who were waiting outside the courtroom to react with rage, shouting “shame” and saying that the Italian state had just acquitted itself, local media reported.Sure, this could have the appearance of a government body (the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks) getting an assist from another government body (the court system -- the same court system, mind you, that two years earlier convicted these
Now, back to the sentence that wasn't overturned.
The government official still doing hard time is Bernardo De Bernardinis, (then) deputy director of the Italian Civil Protection Dept. Apparently, the panel of judges considered his interpretation of the scientists' risk analysis to carry a bit more culpability. This could be because his interpretation of the scientists' assessment ("We showed a map where L’Aquila is purple, which means the highest hazard") was inexplicably much, much cheerier ("The scientific community tells me there is no danger because there is an ongoing discharge of energy"). As it stands now, De Bernardinis has had 16 charges of manslaughter dismissed, but is still working off the other 13.
Nature notes that, because it might take up to three months for the verdict to be published, we don't really know the rationale behind the acquittals. One would hope the reasoning runs along the lines of "to allow these convictions to stand would be batshit crazy, not to mention a latent threat to scientists all over our country." One of the scientists acquitted noted that it appeared the panel of judges agreed no crime had actually been committed -- which is basically the same thing as above, presumably with more legalese.
And, of course, this is a judicial system so it must be noted that these acquittals can be appealed and Italy may find itself locking up scientists again, much to the general aghastness of everyone.
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: earthquake, italy, lawsuits, liability, predictions
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
With the highly complex knowledge needed for the career if I were the guys I'd simply leave collectively and tell Italy to monitor and interpret seismic activities by itself. After all it should be simple to be 100% certain on natural events, no? Ask meteorologists and they'll agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you have a citation for that claim? A quick search for validation on my part only showed up articles like the following, which essentially say the opposite (I'm no expert in the field, but they seem like fairly reasonable sources). If anything the theme seems to be that it's lack of support and funding that's preventing even more people from going to medical school, not what happens after they start practice.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/813306
https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/358410 /20131024.html
"After all it should be simple to be 100% certain on natural events, no? Ask meteorologists and they'll agree."
I think a sarcasm monitor broke somewhere...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, that's a bad issue too. Thanks for the sources btw. I wonder if we can find numbers for those with a medical degree that are working in unrelated jobs or the number of doctors that are needed versus the ones that actually get their degrees?
I may have extrapolated my assumptions based on what we've seen here in my region for the last decade yes, I will look into it. However, having doctors in the family, many professionals I know and there were many, many cases within their social circles that quit practicing autonomously and went to work mostly with companies, many with labor related issues more connected with legal issues with employees (this has more to do with my country labor laws), thus having the legal support from the company itself. Maybe the trend has reverted and I'm assuming something that isn't true anymore nowadays?
I think a sarcasm monitor broke somewhere...
I didn't understand this bit. There are complexities and uncertainties that will produce false positives (or negatives) at times in virtually anything that tries to predict something, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps, but is it really the major factor, let alone the primary one as you implied?
Some of the drop in medical studies can be explained by people choosing other industries that were temporarily seen as a quicker route to riches (the I.T. industry definitely had a glut of people who though they could make it rich, and I believe the US legal industry had a glut of student for a while). Combine that with the fact that baby boomer-era professionals are starting to retire en masse, and the increased population in the last few decades means there's less doctors per capita, and you can easily explain a doctor shortage without considering lawsuits at all.
I don't have any first-hand knowledge in the profession, by the way, I'm just painfully aware of the massive levels of bullshit that have been spread on the subject during the US healthcare "debate" where one side seemed to rely on ridiculous lies to try and keep the status quo. Given that some people seemed obsessed with the idea of tort reform as the magic bullet that would "fix" the industry, I'm very suspicious of claims in this area - especially if you extend the claim to far less litigious countries.
I'll accept that there may have been some problems caused by overzealous litigation, but I'm not convinced this is the major reason behind any shortage of professionals.
"I didn't understand this bit. "
I felt you were being very sarcastic, that's all. I agree, by the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is no shortage of qualified students applying to medical school. There are, for a variety of reasons, limits on the number of available seats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The result is basically the same, however. If the Italians want to be medieval idiots, they can go back to relying on medieval knowledge. Maybe they'll gaol some priests next time (so at least something good will come of it, then...).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/358410/20131024.html
If you don't like that source, then there are many more to choose from.
Got a cite for your claim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Collateral Damage
Once civil servants has to factor in their own behinds when confronted with seismologists' data, public safety fades to a distant secondary consideration.
Bad for science, scientists, and the public.
Good for lawyers, though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Collateral Damage
If the public is alarmed too often they will get in trouble for being alarmist and sued for the damages the preparations cost or stamped as nutjobs.
If they alarm too rarely, they will be liable for not foreseen consequences.
When that is said, there is a communication angle here since it seems the deputy directors communication of the findings could be seen as very misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and while they were on their way home, it began to rain. They are now in the process of suing the local weather broadcaster that told them there was little chance of rain that day.
When did Italians become stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blame the damn scientists... now lets do judges next!
After that we can do economists and then meteorologists. Oh boy! it's gonna be so much fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blame the damn scientists... now lets do judges next!
Do you think you could find room for political pundits (you know, the ones that tell us what we are supposed to think?), and all members of the 'Tea' party?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2. Scientists provided a risk assessment based on probabilities.
3. Even low risk (i.e., low probability) stuff happens sometimes.
This just seems like a lot of people not understanding the information provided. It's sad how often this occurs with scientific knowledge and its interpretation by the public.
See "it's only a "theory""
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hang on a second here. Did they, or did they not, point out that L'Aquila was in danger? How could they have been convicted in the first place if they actually showed that map?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You see, in Italy, when Chicken Little discovered that the sky was falling, he actually needed to arm himself, round up everyone, and march them to safety. If not, his warnings were simply not good enough to protect him from liability.
Oh, and if anyone was injured while they were marched to safety, Chicken Little would be liable for that too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jail everyone for bad risk assessment?
Would this finally hold Wall Street accountable for when their risk assessment of the mortgage industry (or any other market) is wrong and people lose millions? Would less people go into the Wall Street risk assessment departments if they knew they could be jailed if they're wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jail everyone for bad risk assessment?
Do you understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jail everyone for bad risk assessment?
Risk assessments are also based on some sort of assumptions too. These are typically very important but seldom communicated clearly, especially second hand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't tell our media this..
I think Galileo would have been convicted of the same charges as he was the last time under this kind of reasoning.
Don't tell anyone in the US about this, because our scientists will be next on trial for not warning about earthquakes, rainstorms or hurricanes. They'll be sued for having not told anyone adequately, even when given maps, radar and satellite images.
There are no international borders against stupid people-they exist everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]