http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/italian-scientists-to-stand-trial.html?ref=hp (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/italian-scientists-to-stand-trial.html?ref=hp)
QuoteROME—Enzo Boschi, the president of Italy's National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology (INGV), will face trial on charges of manslaughter with six other scientists and technicians for failing to alert the residents of L'Aquila ahead of the devastating earthquake that struck the central Italian town on 6 April 2009, killing 308 people.
The seven experts sit on the nation's major risks committee, and were probed by L'Aquila prosecutors after members of the public complained that it was the committee's reassurances that persuaded them not to leave their homes ahead of the quake.
In addition to Boschi, those facing trial are: Franco Barberi, committee vice president; Bernardo De Bernardinis, at the time vice president of Italy's Civil Protection Department and now president of the country's Institute for Environmental Protection and Research; Giulio Selvaggi, director of the National Earthquake Centre; Gian Michele Calvi, director of the European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering; Claudio Eva, an earth scientist at the University of Genoa; and Mauro Dolce, director of the office of seismic risk at the Civil Protection Department.
The seven were placed under investigation almost a year ago, and today L'Aquila Judge Giuseppe Romano Gargarella announced that they will be tried. According to the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, Gargarella said that the seven defendants had supplied "imprecise, incomplete and contradictory information," in a press conference following a meeting held by the committee 6 days before the quake. In doing so, they "thwarted the activities designed to protect the public," the judge said.
During the meeting on 31 March 2009—which also included other researchers from the INGV, city officials and representatives of the Civil Protection Department—committee vice chair Barberi, one of the seven to be tried, said there were no grounds for thinking that a major quake was imminent, even though the area around the town had been experiencing a series of smaller tremors in the previous months. In the press briefing afterward, prosecutors say, the commission made statements that gave the town's people a false sense of security.
Boschi's lawyer, Marcello Melandri, tells ScienceInsider that Boschi has taken the judge's decision very badly and that the defendants had never expected that the case would actually go to court. Melandri insists that Boschi never sought to reassure the population of L'Aquila that there was no threat. On the contrary, the INGV head made it clear that "at some point it is probable that there will be a big earthquake" in the Abruzzo region, of which L'Aquila is the capital, he says.
Melandri says the trial, scheduled to start on 20 September, could take anywhere between 6 months and 2 years.
It seems that Berlusconi is not the only person on trial in Italy. Now seriously, mind-boggingly stupid trial, I wonder if they'll find volunteers for that kind of comittees in the future.
lol
Italian law is to law as Italian military is to military. These are the kinds of cases that make you realize why the Mafia has been so successful in Italy for so long; because nobody with any brains becomes a government lawyer or judge.
Quote from: grumbler on May 27, 2011, 07:06:17 AM
Southern European law is to law as Southern European military is to military. These are the kinds of cases that make you realize why the Mafia has been so successful in Italy for so long; because nobody with any brains becomes a government lawyer or judge.
Fixed your post for greater accuracy.
I try to keep every little tidbit of embarassing news about Italy as much uncovered as possible, and a fucking spaniard comes and breaks the eggs in the basket. <_<
And that's not even the first time. I'll have you under intense scrutiny, Larchie. :mad: :P
L.
lol greasy-haired freaks. They really are monumentally stupid.
Quote from: Pedrito on May 27, 2011, 07:29:35 AM
I try to keep every little tidbit of embarassing news about Italy as much uncovered as possible, and a fucking spaniard comes and breaks the eggs in the basket. <_<
And that's not even the first time. I'll have you under intense scrutiny, Larchie. :mad: :P
L.
There's no point in hiding something rotten, the stink still comes out. :P And I didn't even find out about this through my Italian contacts! :contract:
Looks like someone applied the principles of American civil law to criminal law.
Crazy case. We're no where near being able to predicate quakes that accurately yet.
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2011, 07:59:09 AM
Looks like someone applied the principles of American civil law to criminal law.
If this was a public body, under US civil law the members would be entitled to immunity. If a private body, there would be no basis to sue because there would be no duty to the public.
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2011, 07:59:09 AM
Looks like someone applied the principles of American civil law to criminal law.
I think they simply applied the Laws of Stupid.
This wll end in a bubble, and in a lot of taxpayers' money blown up.
This story deserves one of the largest facepalms ever.
L.
I thought this kind of case only happens in places like North Korea or Burma. It is a disgrace, really.
I saw the title in Yahoo, where the nationality wasn't mentioned. I didn't click on it to read the story, but from the title, I assumed it was about Iran.
Quote from: DGuller on May 27, 2011, 09:23:44 AM
I saw the title in Yahoo, where the nationality wasn't mentioned. I didn't click on it to read the story, but from the title, I assumed it was about Iran.
:yeah:
L.
Clearly they created the earthquake with their science!
Burn the witches!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 27, 2011, 08:38:57 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2011, 07:59:09 AM
Looks like someone applied the principles of American civil law to criminal law.
If this was a public body, under US civil law the members would be entitled to immunity. If a private body, there would be no basis to sue because there would be no duty to the public.
Neil is to logic as Italy is to law.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 27, 2011, 08:38:57 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2011, 07:59:09 AM
Looks like someone applied the principles of American civil law to criminal law.
If this was a public body, under US civil law the members would be entitled to immunity. If a private body, there would be no basis to sue because there would be no duty to the public.
Was referring more to the 'someone always has to pay' attitude rather than the technicalities of American jurisprudence. You know that specific laws don't really interest me, as I don't really recognize any law as valid apart from My own.
Quote from: grumbler on May 27, 2011, 11:06:48 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 27, 2011, 08:38:57 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2011, 07:59:09 AM
Looks like someone applied the principles of American civil law to criminal law.
If this was a public body, under US civil law the members would be entitled to immunity. If a private body, there would be no basis to sue because there would be no duty to the public.
Neil is to logic as Italy is to law.
But Italy is to law exactly the opposite as grumbler is to being a cunt. So fuck off.
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2011, 12:24:57 PM
But Italy is to law exactly the opposite as grumbler is to being a cunt. So fuck off.
:lol: Thanks. You are funny when you have a mad.
Quote from: grumbler on May 27, 2011, 12:32:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 27, 2011, 12:24:57 PM
But Italy is to law exactly the opposite as grumbler is to being a cunt. So fuck off.
:lol: Thanks. You are funny when you have a mad.
And sexy.
Quote from: Monoriu on May 27, 2011, 09:06:31 AM
I thought this kind of case only happens in places like North Korea or Burma. It is a disgrace, really.
Harsh, but accurate. :pinch:
The scientists have been convicted! :wacko: :(
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49504719/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.UIXEwIaa6T8
Quote
Scientists sentenced to 6 years in jail for quake warning failure
Seven Italians convicted of manslaughter for not sounding alarm about deadly 2009 shock
By Alberto Sisto
updated 10/22/2012 2:30:07 PM ET
L'AQUILA, Italy — Six scientists and a government official were sentenced to six years in prison for manslaughter by an Italian court on Monday for failing to give adequate warning of an earthquake that killed more than 300 people in L'Aquila in 2009.
The seven, all members of a body called the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks, were accused of negligence and malpractice in evaluating the danger and keeping the central city informed of the risks.
The case has drawn condemnation from international bodies including the American Geophysical Union, which said the risk of litigation may deter scientists from advising governments or even working in seismology and seismic risk assessments.
"The issue here is about miscommunication of science, and we should not be putting responsible scientists who gave measured, scientifically accurate information in prison," Richard Walters of Oxford University's Department of Earth Sciences said. "This sets a very dangerous precedent, and I fear it will discourage other scientists from offering their advice on natural hazards and trying to help society in this way."
The scientists — Franco Barberi, Enzo Boschi, Giulio Selvaggi, Gian Michele Calvi, Claudio Eva and Mauro Dolce — as well as Bernardo De Bernardis, a senior official in the Civil Protection Authority, were convicted of criminal manslaughter and causing criminal injury. They are not likely to serve their prison term until after an appeal trial is conducted.
False reassurance?
The 6.3 magnitude earthquake struck L'Aquila, in the Abruzzo region, at 3:32 a.m. on April 6, 2009, wrecking tens of thousands of buildings, injuring more than 1,000 people and killing 308.
At the heart of the case was the question of whether the government-appointed experts gave an overly reassuring picture of the risk facing the town, which contained many ancient and fragile buildings and which had already been partially destroyed three times by earthquakes over the centuries.
Advertise | AdChoices
The case focused in particular on a series of low-level tremors that hit the region in the months preceding the earthquake, and which prosecutors said should have warned experts not to underestimate the risk of a major shock.
Eva's lawyer, Alfredo Biondi, said the decision was "wrong in both fact and law" — but the verdict, delivered in a tiny improvised court room in an industrial zone outside the still-wrecked city center, was welcomed by relatives of the victims.
"This is not thirst for revenge, it is just that our sister is not coming back," said Claudia Carosi.
More than three years later, much of the once-beautiful medieval city is still in ruins and thousands of people have been unable to return to their homes.
What could have been done?
Defense lawyers said earthquakes could not be predicted, and even if they could, nothing could be done to prevent them.
"If an event cannot be foreseen and, more to the point, cannot be avoided, it is hard to understand how there can be any suggestion of a failure to predict the risk," defense lawyer Franco Coppi said before the verdict was delivered.
Prosecutors, who had only sought a four-year sentence, said they did not expect scientists to provide a precise forecast.
But they argued that the commission had given "incomplete, imprecise and contradictory" information on the danger after a meeting on March 31, 2009, a few days before the earthquake.
The case is part of a wider controversy over the disaster in L'Aquila, which has been at the center of a series of bitter rows over Italy's disaster preparedness. Central Italy is continuously shaken by low level tremors, very few of which precede bigger earthquakes, and they are generally marked by no more than a brief statement from civil protection authorities.
The key to the dispute
Key to the dispute is the kind of cautious language, hedged by caveats and reserves which scientists typically use in predicting highly uncertain events, but which can be of limited use as a guideline for the general public.
According to scientific opinion cited by prosecutors, the dozens of lower level tremors seen before the quake were typical of the kind of preliminary seismic activity seen before major earthquakes such as the one that struck on April 6.
Instead of highlighting the danger, they said the experts had made statements playing down the threat of a repeat of the earthquakes which wrecked the town in 1349, 1461 and 1703, saying the smaller shocks were a "normal geological phenomenon."
Italy is among the most earthquake-prone countries in Europe and has been struck repeatedly by lethal shocks, most recently in May 2012, when 16 people were killed and hundreds injured by a 5.8 tremor in the Emilia Romagna region.
Additional reporting by Reuters' Cristiano Corvino and Kate Kelland in London. Reuters' James Mackenzie contributed as a writer.
When I saw this in Google News, I misread the title, and laughed at medieval Iranians convicting scientists for earthquakes. Then I saw it was Italians, which didn't really surprise me either, since their legal system has to be a notch below Soviet legal system in 1937. Then I read this thread over and realized that I already made the Italian/Iranian mix-up in relation to this story before.
Anytime I see something like this come out of a first world country I assume there must be something else to it, some wrinkle that if not excusing it makes it more understandable. For example the famous "million dollar settlement for getting burned by hot coffee from McDonald's" really was a lot more justified than people think. (There was more to it than it sounds like and the woman suffered fairly serious injuries, the jury award was reduced by a judge to $640,000 and then the case was settled for less than that.)
But in this case, there doesn't really appear to be anything like that. The scientific panel basically said that a series of small quakes isn't an immediate risk of a larger quake, but that quakes are unpredictable and can happen at any time. They then warn that building codes need to be significantly strengthened in L'Apulia to avoid seismic damage. Pretty reasonable.
After the committee gave its report, a government bureaucrat (not one of the scientists on the committee, but the government spokesman associated with it) said in a press conference that there was no real risk at all, and people should just calm down and drink some wine. Apparently that statement was the biggest impetus for the prosecution...which even that doesn't strike me as something that should constitute a crime. However, even if you're prosecuting over what that non-scientific bureaucrat said (who was never presented as a scientific expert, the scientific experts warned about building codes and said earthquakes can happen at any time) I don't see why you also arrest and prosecute all the scientists along with him. That makes no sense at all.
Shouldn't legal idiocy like this violate some kind of EU statute or something?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 22, 2012, 05:26:58 PM
Anytime I see something like this come out of a first world country I assume there must be something else to it, some wrinkle that if not excusing it makes it more understandable.
The mistake there may be in assuming that Italy is really a first world country.
Isn't there some higher EU body that can overturn witchcraft convictions like this?
IIRC the ECJ only hears cases related to EU institutions, regulations or staff.
There's the European Court of Human Rights, though.
Quote from: dps on October 22, 2012, 05:48:16 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 22, 2012, 05:26:58 PM
Anytime I see something like this come out of a first world country I assume there must be something else to it, some wrinkle that if not excusing it makes it more understandable.
The mistake there may be in assuming that Italy is really a first world country.
It is a first world country, but unfortunately one with extremely poor governance. It's probably the only example I can think of where notoriously incompetent governance with no redeeming features failed to stem rising prosperity. The economic legacy of the medieval times must be overpowering.
I keep reading and re-reading this and still fail to comprehend how this verdict was possible.... :wacko:
Quote from: Caliga on October 22, 2012, 07:07:41 PM
I keep reading and re-reading this and still fail to comprehend how this verdict was possible.... :wacko:
Read it again?
Quote from: Caliga on October 22, 2012, 07:07:41 PM
I keep reading and re-reading this and still fail to comprehend how this verdict was possible.... :wacko:
Italian legal system. Only a genius could create a system that is so perfectly retarded.
Quote from: DGuller on October 22, 2012, 07:38:46 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 22, 2012, 07:07:41 PM
I keep reading and re-reading this and still fail to comprehend how this verdict was possible.... :wacko:
Italian legal system. Only a genius could create a system that is so perfectly retarded.
They call tghat man: bloody Stupid Johnson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_of_the_Discworld#Bloody_Stupid_Johnson
They should have called the inadvisably spelled Labrinth. I have it on good authority he predicts an earthquake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0fk6syQ7iY&feature=fvwrel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0fk6syQ7iY&feature=fvwrel)
This is the fourth channel through which I have made this joke, and no-one's appreciated it yet. I guess they're not all down with the kids and their grime music like me.
Quote from: Brazen on October 23, 2012, 05:01:34 AM
This is the fourth channel through which I have made this joke, and no-one's appreciated it yet. I guess they're not all down with the kids and their grime music like me.
Eh, I don't listen to hip hop.
That sure doesn't sound like Tupac.
Quote from: Caliga on October 22, 2012, 07:07:41 PM
I keep reading and re-reading this and still fail to comprehend how this verdict was possible.... :wacko:
I am not sure we are actually getting all the facts here. Otto's post comes close to the news report I heard on the radio. Apparently after the first series of tremors people in the village were very frightened because they live in such unstable houses and most of them were sleeping outside away from their houses so as to avoid injury if stronger tremors or a stronger quake occurred. It was in that context that the reasurrance was given. The report I heard did not distance the other scientists from the reassurance the way Otto has done.
Essentially the message was dont worry, go back to your homes, everything is fine. Based on the reported evidence that reassurance was grossly negligent. I have no idea how the civil law of Italy deals with such grossly negligent statements if they cause death or serious injury but based on the result I assume it is criminal conduct.
Quote from: DGuller on October 22, 2012, 07:38:46 PM
Italian legal system. Only a genius could create a system that is so perfectly retarded.
Ancient Rome had a legal system that was the model for its age. I wonder what kind of government central italy had in the intervening 2000 years?
Quote from: alfred russel on October 23, 2012, 11:32:21 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 22, 2012, 07:38:46 PM
Italian legal system. Only a genius could create a system that is so perfectly retarded.
Ancient Rome had a legal system that was the model for its age. I wonder what kind of government central italy had in the intervening 2000 years?
:pope:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2012, 11:06:05 AM
Essentially the message was dont worry, go back to your homes, everything is fine. Based on the reported evidence that reassurance was grossly negligent. I have no idea how the civil law of Italy deals with such grossly negligent statements if they cause death or serious injury but based on the result I assume it is criminal conduct.
but the scientists deny saying this. The bureaucrat did say so, but scientists deny telling him that and there's no evidence they did, afaik.
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2012, 01:19:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2012, 11:06:05 AM
Essentially the message was dont worry, go back to your homes, everything is fine. Based on the reported evidence that reassurance was grossly negligent. I have no idea how the civil law of Italy deals with such grossly negligent statements if they cause death or serious injury but based on the result I assume it is criminal conduct.
but the scientists deny saying this. The bureaucrat did say so, but scientists deny telling him that and there's no evidence they did, afaik.
Neither of us was in the Court room during the year long trial to hear the evidence to the contrary. Also what was the evidence related to the scientists telling people the assurance was dead wrong.
Exactly. So if we're not in court to hear the evidence, always assume that the court got it wrong. Lawyers are like journalists, only more detrimental to society.
Quote from: Neil on October 23, 2012, 02:42:54 PM
Exactly. So if we're not in court to hear the evidence, always assume that the court got it wrong. Lawyers are like journalists, only more detrimental to society.
There's nothing wrong with journalists or lawyers. :mad:
Barrister would have prosecuted them.
Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2012, 02:43:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 23, 2012, 02:42:54 PM
Exactly. So if we're not in court to hear the evidence, always assume that the court got it wrong. Lawyers are like journalists, only more detrimental to society.
There's nothing wrong with journalists or lawyers. :mad:
Not as people (well, not all of them), but rather professionally. They just get everything wrong, every time.