6 Years In Jail For An Honest Mistake

From what I have read the issue was that "After a series of small temblors in early 2009, the six seismologists and the government official held a public meeting in which they said it was "unlikely" that the shaking foreshadowed a larger quake." .

I can understand that the prediction of earthquakes is not an exact science. That being said I can also understand the point that the prosecution is making. These people were given a position of authority that showed that people could trust that what they had to say was accurate. From my understanding, they weren't being prosecuted for being wrong in their prediction but rather for presenting their beliefs as fact because of their authority on the matter. Seeing as how the only people that probably know what was said word for word are people who were there with a video camera or people with an eidetic memory, not knowing the facts it would probably be best not to assume either party is correct without having all the facts. Let's look at this as if the prosecution did have video or an accurate transcript of what was said.

Using your weather analogy V...suppose you have an old man in your neighborhood running through the street screaming that a tornado is coming. Then suppose you watch the weather station and the weatherman (assuming for this scenario that anyone in this day and age trusted weathermen to be accurate ) shows you 8 different scenarios in which a tornado won't happen but ignores their responsibility to tell you about the other 2 scenarios and how bad they could be. If one of those two scenarios happened and you were never informed of how bad it could be so you didn't prepare for the possibility...was the weatherman at fault?

Perhaps something as simple as phrasing the same statement another way could have saved some lives.

It has been condemned by many organisations including the American Geophysical Union.

I agree that the media and science are not always being completely trustworthy or neutral. And it is always something to bear in mind when reading these sorts of articles and reports.

But I have been keeping an eye on this story and with the amount of criticism that the prosecution has received from many different organisations from many different countries, it really does seem that for some reason the Italian courts are just determined to be seen to be blaming and punishing someone. It's understandable in a way...when people die from something that seems in hindsight to be preventable, you want to understand why it was not prevented, and you want consequences for the lack of prevention...revenge almost. TO me it somehow seems easier I mean...if you're going to blame someone it may well indirectly be their fault. But to be branded man-slaughterers? And to spend 6 years in jail for it? 6 years is a very long time...

The benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing...

But sometimes it twists and tarnishes things too

Resticon wrote: From what I have read the issue was that "After a series of small temblors in early 2009, the six seismologists and the government official held a public meeting in which they said it was "unlikely" that the shaking foreshadowed a larger quake." .

These people were given a position of authority that showed that people could trust that what they had to say was accurate. From my understanding, they weren't being prosecuted for being wrong in their prediction but rather for presenting their beliefs as fact because of their authority on the matter.

Perhaps something as simple as phrasing the same statement another way could have saved some lives.

But if they said it was 'unlikely', that's not really presenting it as a fact...that allows for the possibility that it could happen. And they were quite possibly right and accurate in their assertions...it could have been a one in a million chance that there would be a bigger earthquake, but that still allows a small chance that it would happen.

That's what I meant about hindsight...the fact that there happened to be an earthquake after all doesn't automatically mean they were wrong...

I do not disagree on any particular point you have made. As I said though, I can see it both ways. If nothing else, this situation could be used to remind the public that many predictive sciences are never 100% accurate and help to ensure that people in positions of authority and power word their statements more carefully. This whole thing reminds me of the South Park episode "Coon 2: Hindsight".


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

What you have to look at is that this area is known for its seisms.

What If the scientists had said it is "likely"? Would people have moved out? What if people moved out and the scientists had been wrong? yet another case of "just like they do with climate change, now a bunch of alarmist scientists cost the economy x billion euro through false seism claims". It's just a no win situation.

Anyways, do you think that this might even affect architects in the future as well?

Depends on what the architects are in charge of. (jurisdiction) They have a tendency to screw up... Where I come from they're more into "design". The tough stuff is done by structural engineers. I worked on a project (was doing all the electric schematics) in that region and had to, myself, change the architectural plans based on what the general foreman and the structural engineers were saying, so that our guys could lay the sheath in the right places...

Anyway, when it comes to the wider consequences of this act, yes I think they are quite grave. If you can do prison time for giving your opinion, people are going to stop giving their opinion, or are going to charge a LOT for it, or simply are going to move to an area where said opinion is appreciated...

I have to agree with V and ren, though I also understand what Resticon is saying (awesome video )

There are always instances where you can say the "scientists are clearly to blame" - if for example the LHC created a blackhole and destroyed the world then someone would DEFINITELY go to jail... lets not even start with the Black Mesa incident...

But looking at this individual case as it is presented I don't think the scientists are wholly to be held responsible - and certainly I don't think they should have been sent to prison

I mean... you live on a fault line... you get an earthquake... it's someone else's fault? Granted if you rely on their judgement then yes I understand... but you live on a fault line...

Remember that Japanese nuclear accident (Fukishima?) should the scientists be blamed for not having better methods to shut it down?

Should the Japanese government be blamed for... you know... having a nuclear power plant... on a fault line...

I blame the Italian government for not having more stringent building regulations. That is clearly reason enough for a manslaughter charge

Blame can be spread around very easily. If no one had reported that riots were happening in London (last year?) then news wouldn't have spread and started other riots! TO HELL WITH THE BBC

People can make mistakes and it's easy to pick on them when they do. But I think people simply don't want to accept that they themselves are also to blame for their own decisions sometimes...

So, I don't have anything more to add to this topic right now, but, I am attending a dinner in about two weeks that will discuss this topic: here's a summary...


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.


I'll let you guys know what other points are brought up during the discussion, which will include a PhD scientist at my university....