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 witches scientists of manslaughter), but it isn’t. It’s the return to a better, simpler time when scientists weren’t charged with criminal activities simply for providing risk analysis.

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.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Italian Court Acquits Scientists Of Manslaughter Charges Incurred After Failing To Predict Deadly Earthquake”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
27 Comments
Ninja (profile) says:

The end result will be people fleeing from such fields of work simply out of fear much like it’s happening with doctors. Less people are seeking a medical degree due to the fact that anything may result in a lawsuit, regardless of if it was an error or if the error was caused by factors beyond professional control. The result is a lack of professionals in the field that is clearly starting to be felt (not only in the US btw).

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.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“Less people are seeking a medical degree due to the fact that anything may result in a lawsuit”

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…

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

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.

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?

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Just a heads up I checked around and indeed it was a problem in the 2000s and much like in the US they rose the bar to avoid petty litigation against doctors it seems that it was the case here too. Shame on me for not updating my knowledge. However I think my point may still stand since the uncertainty back then did cause problems that sparked such legal protections. Maybe this will spark more protection for the scientists in Italy too?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“However I think my point may still stand since the uncertainty back then did cause problems that sparked such legal protections”

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.

Groaker (profile) says:

Re: Re:

There are fewer medical lawsuits than ever. With monetary caps on pain and suffering, it is next to impossible to find an attorney who will take a case on a contingency basis. The victim generally must fund their own case, something that most people can not afford to do.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

More likely they’ll just leave the country; scientists tend to be somewhat international in their outlook and mobile in their residence (at least one overseas position is a standard feature of a lot of academic careers).

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…).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Collateral Damage

Well, it will be a very strange situation to maneuver for future scientists:

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.

Michael (profile) says:

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.

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?

Anonymous Coward says:

1. Predicting earthquakes currently is not possible.

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””

Michael (profile) says:

Re: Re:

When someone is dumb enough to blame scientists for deaths caused by an earthquake, they also believe that even when presented with information that they may be at risk, the person that came up with that information is also responsible for making them listen.

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.

John85851 (profile) says:

Jail everyone for bad risk assessment?

Here’s an idea: what if we jailed everyone when their risk assessment was wrong?
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?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Jail everyone for bad risk assessment?

Very hard to do. If I say it’s low risk to occur and it does occur, it doesn’t mean I was wrong. Rare things happen all the time.

Risk assessments are also based on some sort of assumptions too. These are typically very important but seldom communicated clearly, especially second hand

FM Hilton (profile) says:

Don't tell our media this..

Sure, they acquitted some of them, but the verdict still stands as proof of ultimate stupid.

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...