• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Italian scientists convicted of manslaughter for not predicting earthquake

Kandahar

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Six Italian scientists and an ex-government official have been sentenced to six years in prison over the 2009 deadly earthquake in L'Aquila. A regional court found them guilty of multiple manslaughter. Prosecutors said the defendants gave a falsely reassuring statement before the quake, while the defence maintained there was no way to predict major quakes. The 6.3 magnitude quake devastated the city and killed 309 people. It took Judge Marco Billi slightly more than four hours to reach the verdict in the trial, which had begun in September 2011.


BBC News - L'Aquila quake: Italy scientists guilty of manslaughter
Click to expand...

:shock:

Holy. Crap. People are so ****ing stupid. Aside from the injustice and the human tragedy associated with this case, this verdict will have a chilling effect on science. What has happened to Italy? It used to be a modern country, but over the past decade it has devolved into a banana republic.
 
The article is pro-defendent and really doesn't tell us much. Didn't even include the text of the statement. These fellows were in "Risk Assessment", if they softballed the risk and people died because of it, they'd be charged in any jurisdiction.
 
clownboy said:
The article is pro-defendent and really doesn't tell us much. Didn't even include the text of the statement.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where to get the text of the statement (or if it has even been translated into English), but The Economist and Ars Technica both have good writeups on the background of this case:

L'Aquila's earthquake: Scientists in the dock
Italian scientists convicted of manslaughter for earthquake risk report | Ars Technica

These fellows were in "Risk Assessment", if they softballed the risk and people died because of it, they'd be charged in any jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Basically what happened was that after a few smaller quakes in the area, these scientists conducted a risk assessment based on the information they had. The scientists studied it and concluded that smaller quakes are not necessarily a harbinger of larger quakes, and that based on the available information the area was no more at risk for a large quake than it normally would be. A political figure then went on television and concluded that there was no risk. The earthquake happened a few days later.

There's not really any reason to think that the scientists were softballing the risk based on the information they had (their conclusions were at least arguably accurate)...and in any case manslaughter seems like a rather excessive crime to charge them with. The danger here is that this kind of intimidation will make people reluctant to go into science at all if there is a possibility that they will be charged with a crime if their predictions do not pan out.
 
Idiots in lower courts.. Will be appealed and turned over at some point.
 
Kandahar said:
I'm not sure where to get the text of the statement (or if it has even been translated into English), but The Economist and Ars Technica both have good writeups on the background of this case:

L'Aquila's earthquake: Scientists in the dock
Italian scientists convicted of manslaughter for earthquake risk report | Ars Technica



Basically what happened was that after a few smaller quakes in the area, these scientists conducted a risk assessment based on the information they had. The scientists studied it and concluded that smaller quakes are not necessarily a harbinger of larger quakes, and that based on the available information the area was no more at risk for a large quake than it normally would be. A political figure then went on television and concluded that there was no risk. The earthquake happened a few days later.

There's not really any reason to think that the scientists were softballing the risk based on the information they had (their conclusions were at least arguably accurate)...and in any case manslaughter seems like a rather excessive crime to charge them with. The danger here is that this kind of intimidation will make people reluctant to go into science at all if there is a possibility that they will be charged with a crime if their predictions do not pan out.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree with that last, just wasn't seeing anywhere near the unbiased story, or any detail, in the OP reporting. If what they say is true, it's the politico who made the announcement that should be up on the manslaughter charges, not the folks compiling the data.
 
Kandahar said:
:shock:

Holy. Crap. People are so ****ing stupid. Aside from the injustice and the human tragedy associated with this case, this verdict will have a chilling effect on science. What has happened to Italy? It used to be a modern country, but over the past decade it has devolved into a banana republic.
Click to expand...

Italy sure likes charging people with murder/man slaughter charges even if there ain't enough evidence to do so. There are many times I find myself thankful to live in the US. The Italian Police make me thankful.
 
This is one of those instances where people simply don't understand science. The general populace are the same idiots we expect to understand simple concepts like "evolution" beyond a theistic interpretation of facts. How can we expect them to understand something like geology?
 
did I miss some important breakthru in seismology that enables us to now predict with specificity when large earthquakes are going to occur?
If so, I suggest they get their butts over to Yellowstone and the San Andreas faults posthaste.
 
I saw the title of this thread and thought it was a joke. Imagine my shock. This kind of lunacy passes for "justice" in Italy nowadays? Mama mia!!
 
Apparently, the geologists in question didn't understand geology very well either.

Hatuey said:
This is one of those instances where people simply don't understand science. The general populace are the same idiots we expect to understand simple concepts like "evolution" beyond a theistic interpretation of facts. How can we expect them to understand something like geology?
Click to expand...
 
This is idiotic. The scientists concluded that a large earthquake was unlikely, not impossible. What's next, sacrificing virgins to secure next year's crop?
 
Peter Grimm said:
Apparently, the geologists in question didn't understand geology very well either.
Click to expand...

Uh... what? Even if you understand geology - there's no way to predict an earthquake. Are you even serious?
 
Well, you inexplicably tried to blame this mess on what you seem to call the creationists lack of knowledge, whereas the only people whose knowledge failed them were the geologists in question.

In your own words, they were unable to predict the earthquake.

As I said, the geologists didn't know enough geology to be useful.

Your post was rather ironic.

Hatuey said:
Uh... what? Even if you understand geology - there's no way to predict an earthquake. Are you even serious?
Click to expand...
 
How is it that you can understand the way in which government and political interference can damage incentives for good science to take place, but, as a liberal, you are unable to understand how government and political interference can damage economic incentives?

Kandahar said:
The danger here is that this kind of intimidation will make people reluctant to go into science at all if there is a possibility that they will be charged with a crime if their predictions do not pan out.
Click to expand...
 
Kandahar said:
:shock:

Holy. Crap. People are so ****ing stupid. Aside from the injustice and the human tragedy associated with this case, this verdict will have a chilling effect on science. What has happened to Italy? It used to be a modern country, but over the past decade it has devolved into a banana republic.
Click to expand...

Italy decided (politically) to swing away from all the good things their historical and cultural background provided them with. I am ofc talking about their Roman heritage and their Renaissance heritage, their Enlightenment heritage.

The Romans were famed for their good justice system, among many other things. The Law, with most of its correct principles today, have been given to us and the world by the Romans. During the time of the Italian city-states in the renaissance period, they were the hub of civilization. The Italian peninsula was the most civilized place in the world. Damn, even war was civilized over there. And I could go on for pages on end... but it will only revoke bitter feelings in all who appreciate civilization.
 
Rainman05 said:
Italy decided (politically) to swing away from all the good things their historical and cultural background provided them with. I am ofc talking about their ... Enlightenment heritage.
Click to expand...
Italy wasn't really at the forefront of the Enlightenment. The influence of the Vatican made it difficult and slow for the idea of reason to take a hold there. Just FYI.

The Romans were famed for their good justice system, among many other things. The Law, with most of its correct principles today, have been given to us and the world by the Romans.
Click to expand...
Although it (Roman law) influenced it, Common Law is quite distinct, and is the basis of the legal systems of around a third of all jurisdictions, including the US. So, it's a little misleading to say the The Law has been given to us by the Romans.
 
Andalublue said:
Italy wasn't really at the forefront of the Enlightenment. The influence of the Vatican made it difficult and slow for the idea of reason to take a hold there. Just FYI.
Click to expand...

Hehe that is an understatement.
 
Rainman05 said:
Italy decided (politically) to swing away from all the good things their historical and cultural background provided them with. I am ofc talking about their Roman heritage and their Renaissance heritage, their Enlightenment heritage.

The Romans were famed for their good justice system, among many other things. The Law, with most of its correct principles today, have been given to us and the world by the Romans. During the time of the Italian city-states in the renaissance period, they were the hub of civilization. The Italian peninsula was the most civilized place in the world. Damn, even war was civilized over there. And I could go on for pages on end... but it will only revoke bitter feelings in all who appreciate civilization.
Click to expand...

Yea and then they became Christians... and it went down hill from then on.
 
PeteEU said:
I would say disagree fully, but cant.. hate defensive football.. grrrrrrrr. Good luck with City this week.. they gonna need it :)
Click to expand...

Yup, a win's the only acceptable result. Thank God we're not playing an Italian team. If we were to beat them, their coach might face prosecution for not predicting it.
 
PeteEU said:
Yea and then they became Christians... and it went down hill from then on.
Click to expand...

No. They were Christians during the Renaissance. While it is true that Christianity coincided with the fall of the Roman Empire, it wasn't its cause.

So you can thank Christianity for allowing city states to develop themselves in peace and bringing stability to the region. It is because of the great influence the Vatican had in the region that senseless, brutal wars weren't done there between nations.
 
Andalublue said:
Italy wasn't really at the forefront of the Enlightenment. The influence of the Vatican made it difficult and slow for the idea of reason to take a hold there. Just FYI.

I'm quite sure Florence, Milano, Rome, Pisa and many more cities were hubs of englightenment and knowledge during that period. Italy may not have been the home to the greatest of Enlightenment thinkers, France was, but it still played a massive role. it is correct, there the Vatican had the greatest presence... so tempering Christianity with reason... bringing it into a more enlightened stage which we see today mainly in the people who follow Christianity, was a success that the italian movement had. A key player in the overall reforming of Europe into a new, better stage. It was already the best, but it could be improved.

Although it (Roman law) influenced it, Common Law is quite distinct, and is the basis of the legal systems of around a third of all jurisdictions, including the US. So, it's a little misleading to say the The Law has been given to us by the Romans.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was misleading. I didn't meant to say that ALL law is given to us by the Romans, but the main principles on which the legal system and the law is based on are inherited from the Romans. You know, like everybody is equal in the face of the law, law is blind, everybody should be represented, it is not what the great unwashed say but what the court says, and the list spans into eternity.
 
I am not saying I support this, it may go too far. But there is something to be said for holding scientists accountable for the human consequences of their actions.
 
Andalublue said:
Although it (Roman law) influenced it, Common Law is quite distinct, and is the basis of the legal systems of around a third of all jurisdictions, including the US. So, it's a little misleading to say the The Law has been given to us by the Romans.
Click to expand...
There's as much Roman Law in the Common Law as there is in Civil Law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom