L'Aquila quake: Italy scientists guilty of manslaughter

Well, now no one will do that job in Italy, ever. Good job judge, no catastrophe prevention whatsoever. When we are at it, when will be judges held criminally responsible for a poor assessment of the cases when it turns out the person they put in prison was innocent ? Oh wait, judges are special kind of people, they cannot be held responsible for "very poor assessment" of hard facts, compared to a "very poor assessment" of inherently imperfect facts, very basic global human knowledge of earthquakes etc.

What if the scientist would have said "Yes, there will be a huge earthquake in next 7 days" and nothing would have happened for months, but while evacuating a bus would have crashed and killed all 40 passengers ? Would be the scientist held responsible for manslaughter of those 40 people, plus a inconvenience for those hundreds of people who will have to leave their homes for nothing ?

 

Still horse maneure: I refer you to point 4 again. The court is not able to critically evaluate scientific interpretations of scientific data better than a scientist who is expert in his field.

 

You would hope so wouldn't you...

But I would assume that the prosecution would involve some expert in that field giving an assessment in some way. Note that the defence is quite capable of demonstrating their reasoning if they choose to do so.

 

Time and again they show they are unable though.

IP law
Internet issues like censorship and DRM (Digital Economy Act, ACTA etc)

Anything remotely technical and multi-layered it's got to be simplified beyond belief.

 

A local court, deciding about who to blame for local catastrophe... Don't make me laugh with your expectations about experts. If they would have invited an expert, then the case wouldn't have survived one day in the court room and prosecutor would have been already out of his job, or at least his bonuses removed for bringing such stupid case in front of the court in first place.

 

I was referring to the fact that you'd hope the scientists would know more than the court but I do think that's still a very valid point. I don't want to discount the possibility of a miscarriage of justice, but I feel people are too reluctant to consider the fact that the scientists (and another civil servant, remember) were simply just negligent or grossly incompetent.

Truth be told I don't think we currently have enough information on what actually happened to pass judgement on the decision. Certainly everything I have been saying is purely theoretical.

 

Scientists can be incompetent or negligent or just motivate by pure self-interest (see Andrew Wakefield and the MMR jab scare). But the point remains that a judge or prosecutor are not qualified to make that judgement. That's why we have expert witnesses. As far as I'm aware none were called in the case, which makes the trial invalid on point 4 alone.

 

Ending Credits: This is why people are debating you still. Rather than conceding the point that a judge is unqualified to make the assessment due to lack of training and experience, you keep insisting that the trial not be discounted because gross negligence might have happened.

This however appears to be against all of the actual expert's advice. Those people who actually, as you put it, 'currently have enough information on what actually happened to pass judgment on the decision.'

 

But the majority of these experts (I presume you meant plural) have no idea what went on in that courtroom, neither are they entirely disinterested in the issue.

The latter half of this seems to point towards my theory at least.

This sums up my views rather well.

 

The reasoning is still flawed and the end result will be a huge fine from European courts and paralysed catastrophe prevention in Italy.

If the scientists are guilty of manslaughter, then companies which built the houses in the area and local government agencies controlling if the buildings are built according to the regulations are then guilty of premeditated murder.

Same logic as yours.

 

I don't see any problem with that; I think given the evidence they're probably just as much to blame.

I actually agree that manslaughter is a very harsh ruling although we do have to keep in mind that these people were directly responsible for the safety of thousands of people.

 

You are still avoiding the main issue: that the court is not qualified to evaluate the scientific interpretation of scientific data, and that no scientist expert witnesses were called in this trial.

 

But there actually was.

Now, admittedly this is one person versus 5000 so it's far from conclusive, and from what I gather the criticism is mainly against the system used, and there are definite hints of a personal agenda, but still an expert witness nonetheless.

 

Goody: one witness challenging a system that is considered a gold standard in many countries by many experts. Not convincing.

This is about politics: people died tragically in a disaster, and someone's got to pay. A scientist suddenly finds a stage for his scientific opinion. But he should have kept it in the sciebtific journals, not a kangaroo court spectacle.

 

One of these things does not belong:
A) Pilots
B) Doctors
C) Geologists
D) Civil Engineers

So I take it that you go to 5001 doctors whenever you want a second opinion? Incidentally, most of the people on that list are likely hold a doctorate.

His argument was that they should have used stricter standards to create their building codes. It had nothing to do with their assessment of this earthquake, just that if Italy had the same standards as California, fewer structures would have collapsed and thus fewer deaths.

 

In more sensible Italian court proceedings Silvio Berlusconi sentenced to 4 years in jail.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20102215

Gets 2 appeals mind before he goes behind bars...

 

Miscarriage of justice if anything. The fact of the matter is: Can you sue someone for holding a wrong prediction? I mean it's just a prediction. Sure in this case it involved many people's lives but at the same time, how can you hold someone accountable for something that is out of their control?

Quick! Someone sue the makers of the Challenger!