Skip to comments.Scientists face four years in prison for failing to predict earthquake
Posted on 09/27/2012 11:22:44 AM PDT by Hunton Peck
Six Italian scientists and one government official could see four-year prison terms for manslaughter for allegedly downplaying the risk of an earthquake in the town of L'Aquila, Italy, in 2009.
According to prosecutors, the six researchers and the Department of Civil Protection downplayed the likelihood that a series of tremors that hit the city in early 2009 were foreshadowing a larger quake. On April 6, 2009, a magnitude-6.3 earthquake killed 309 city residents.
The trial, which began about a year ago, has worried scientists, who point out that earthquake prediction is not possible. But prosecutors insist that the trial is not about predicting the unpredictable, according to Nature News. During closing arguments on Monday and Tuesday (Sept. 24-25), the prosecution assistant told the courtroom that instead, the scientists and officials had inadequately assessed the risk of a quake and given deceptive information to the public.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
So, the resulting consequences will be daily headlines of
“Scientists Predicting Dire Disaster Strikes” - of course the said disaster could happen any time in the next 5 billion years, that should about cover it.
The sky is falling crowd will be so pleased.
If I remember right, they said there was no chance for an earthquake right before it happened.
I am torn on this one. They ignored a lot of evidence, but we don’t jail the weatherman for a tornado.
The Italian justice system is nuts.
And if he weighs the same as a duck, he is a.....?
Yep. I even made fun of that and the “Wife of Jesus” nonsense on my new blog. Reposted on FR in its entirety of course.
6.3 earthquake won’t even phase a descent building!!!
Build crap in an earthquake zone and don’t bitch when you get killed!!!!
Gee - And I thought the “someone, anyone, must be held to blame” virus was a particularly American legal disease!!!
I missed that one.
Where they once burned diviners, they now punish non-divination. How insane is that?
Sorry but I don't see the distinction here. What's the difference in failing to predict the unpredictable and "inadequately assesing the risk of a quake"?
Hmmm, let’s see, the guilty GW alarmists should be...burned at the stake!
Can the families of the embassy staff sue the state department for dismissing the danger of an attack?
I guess if you’re paid to predict earthquakes and you fail to predict them then its professional malpractice in the least.
Back in the days when even lawyers and judges were mostly sane people, malpractice required more than just an unfavorable outcome. Some failure to meet accepted practice standards was also necessary. Supposedly, that’s still a requirement in American courts.
Lets see how the pols respond when scientists warn them to evacuate Naples because of the threat from the Potzzuoli super volcano...
And if they predict an earthquake and it doesn’t happen? Is that a crime too?
What’s really stupid is building again in the same place as the earthquake that just happened.
Certain areas are earthquake-prone, and there will be another earthquake, it’s just a matter of time.
The french authorities blamed a mechanic for allegedly leaving a screw loose or some trivial thing that caused the Concord disaster.European “justice” has its fair share of scapegoats for all kinds of catastrophes.So yes there is an arbitrary and informal way of randomly charging somebody if things go to pot in Europe.
The problem with Italy and it is a beautiful country is that a lot of the buildings are old fashioned and they tend to collapse during big earthquakes.An entire town had to be abandoned after it became too unstable.
that’s nearly as silly as gubmint fining people for not buying a product.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.