A court in L’Aquila, a town in Italy’s Abruzzo region badly hit by an earthquake in April 2009, found Italy’s Serious Risks Commission guilty of providing “inaccurate, incomplete and contradictory” information on the risk of a major earthquake occurring. In other words, the commission did not cry wolf.
The commission, made up of some of Italy’s most respected experts in the field of seismology, was also found guilty of indirectly causing the deaths of 29 people, who, it was claimed, would have otherwise left the town before the earthquake struck a little over four days after the Serious Risks Commission met.
The decision of the Italian court has caused tremors within the world’s scientific communities. American and Japanese scientists labeled the sentence “absurd and dangerous”, at the same time pointing out that it is impossible to predict earthquakes.
Calling into question the objectivity of the court, it has come to light that the judge presiding over the case, and the prosecution, were all from the Abruzzo region of Italy.
Scientists in Italy have also been left shocked by the sentence. Members of the Serious Risks Commission have resigned stating that they can no longer offer advice to the Italian state.
Calls have been made to Italy’s President Napolitano to intervene, though so far, he has not.
Italy’s environment minister criticised the decision of the Abruzzo court, adding that he hoped the ruling would be overturned at appeal.
What Happened?
When called in to the town of L’Aquila after a magnitude 4.0 tremor had occurred on March 30, 2009, the meeting of the Serious Risks Commission gave the impression that the risk of a major earthquake occurring was low, or so the court alleged. As a consequence of the way in which the commission’s findings were interpreted some people apparently felt reassured enough that they returned to their homes.
A few days later, early in the morning of April 6, 2009, a powerful earthquake struck. The quake caused the deaths of over 300 people.
What reassurances?
Now, I have read the minutes, in Italian, of the meeting held by the Serious Risks Commission in Abruzzo on March 31, 2009.
I have to say that I would not have felt at all reassured by the observations made at the meeting. The comments do not appear to be at all “inaccurate, incomplete or contradictory”, either.
Here is a brief summary of the meeting:
- The head of the commission, Professor Barberi stated that is it extremely difficult to make predictions about the evolution of seismic events.
- Another member of the commission noted that as the Abruzzo region is normally seismically active, it is impossible to say that there will not be earthquakes.
- It was also pointed out by a member of the commission that, seeing as l’Aquila is in a high risk zone, attention must be paid to the construction of buildings in the area.
Upon this comment, perhaps certain buildings, such as the poorly constructed student halls of residence, should have been quietly evacuated. This did not happen.
- Furthermore, the commission observed that frequent low intensity tremors cannot be considered an indication that a strong earthquake might occur.
Read out of context, this statement could be interpreted as meaning that just because there are tremors, a major earthquake will not occur. In reality though, there are areas of Italy which suffer from tremors regularly and such tremors do not indicate that a major earthquake is on the way. The presence of tremors is simply not a reliable indicator one way or another.
- Interestingly, perhaps, commission member Profressor Dolce underlined the importance of paying particular attention to buildings used for educational purposes. Did he know something the others did not?
During the April 6 earthquake, the collapse of student accommodation did lead to loss of life. It is strongly suspected that the residence had not been constructed in accordance with building regulations designed to ensure structures are earthquake proof.
At no point in the minutes did the commission state that an major earthquake could occur or would not occur. Indeed, the commission went to some length to stress that it is simply not possible to predict earthquakes.
Italian readers can see the minutes here: http://speciali.espresso.repubblica.it/pdf/terremoto/verbale.pdf
For underestimating the risk, and, therefore, allegedly causing the deaths of 29 people, the seven members of the commission – 6 scientists and one former civil protection agency official – were found guilty of involuntary manslaughter each was sentenced to a 6 year prison term.
An Enormous Error
I believe outcome of this case is an enormous error on the part of the, possibly biased, court which, at the end of the day, prosecuted the scientists for being unable to predict an earthquake – which is something experts around the world acknowledge is impossible.
The only member of the commission who might merit some punishment was not a scientist, but the ex-official of the civil protection agency – Bernardo De Bernardinis – who was also a defendant. The official announced there was “no danger.” To make such an assertion in an area known to be at high risk of earthquakes was perhaps irresponsible.
A few days later, and after 300 deaths, De Bernardinis was proven to be very wrong.
Appeals, Hopefully
None of the commission is yet languishing in an Italian prison because the case will proceed through at least one appeal stage. There is, however, still a chance that the scientists, and the ex-civil protection agency official, will end up behind bars.
Italy, and the rest of the world, is now waiting to discover on just what legal grounds the scientists and the official were found guilty. Details of the judge’s decision will appear in two months or so.
Unjust Italian Justice?
Has justice been served? Not really. In fact the case is making Italian justice look distinctly unjust in the eyes of the world.
Italy’s justice system is due to be reformed at some point in the near future, and the findings of the court in this case indicates the system is in serious need of reform. Italy’s court system has a reputation for being exceedingly slow – yet another reason for reforms to be introduced.
Whether the reforms, if they ever happen, will render Italian justice more just, is something that is probably as hard to predict as an earthquake.
Let’s hope this ridiculous judgement is overturned as soon as possible.
A nation with a court system that issues such decisions is highly unlikely to attract foreign direct investment, now is it?
—–
Image by: Mario Fornasari from Ferrara, Italy
P. Gallagher says
Sig. Luca,
What you have just stated – that the experts gave wrong/misleading information is known and understood by everybody already. It is a given. The fact is that these experts should not have been placed in that position in the first place. Whether they were pressured by politics is irrelevant. If it was that obvious that a quake was imminent, then the state should have announced it. The whole question here is just as absurd as the verdict itself.
You may remember, some 20 years ago, there was a similar scenario. I was in the Garfagnana area, and people were evacuating their homes because of what an “expert” had stated on television. Fortunately, there was no quake, but I remember the media repercussions as to whether a public prognosis from an expert was appropriate or not. Predicting a quake can cause panic, chaos and fatalities. Remaining silent may lead to huge lose of life should there really be a quake. Any expert, under these circumstances is under enormous pressures, and in reality follows political pressure. The state is purely using these experts as the fall guys in a very cynical manner .
Luca says
Signor Roe,
io capisco Lei e Voi stranieri in generale. Il punto è che siete troppo ingenui e non avete una mente contorta come la nostra.
Il punto è che quando la Grandi Rischi si è riunita per le valutazioni, le scosse stavano aumentando di intensità e di numero. Insomma, non potevano proprio andare in giro a dire “è tutto normale, non possiamo prevedere cosa succederà, state tranquilli”…sarebbe bastato dire la verità.
Paul London says
mm – rather reminds me of this.
http://www.burnleyexpress.net/lifestyle/1612-appears-on-pendle-hill-to-mark-400th-anniversary-of-lancashire-witch-trials-1-4852667
If the scientists should manage to win an appeal, can we expect a search for witches to blame?
Very odd case indeed.
Luca says
Gentile signor Roe,
scrivo in italiano perché se scrivessi in inglese, mi risulterebbe difficile spiegare per bene i concetti che sto per esporLe.
Punto primo: prima di giudicare una sentenza, bisognerebbe conoscerne le motivazioni.
Punto secondo: i fantastici scienziati che tutto il mondo sta piangendo, in realtà, tanto fantastici non sono.
Ora le posto il link delle memorie del pubblico ministero, sulle quali è regge l’impianto accusatorio:
http://www.6aprile.it/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/memoria_pm_13_luglio.pdf
lo digiti nella stringa di google e le apparirà il pdf.
Vedrà che gli scienziati non sono stati condannati per non aver previsto il terremoto (cosa impossibile), ma per avere divulgato informazioni false in merito al grado di rischio che avevano valutato durante la loro riunione, e che lo abbiano fatto sotto intimazione della Protezione Civile.
Per questo comportamento sono morte 32 persone. Non c’è nessuno processo alla scienza, ma solo al comportamento scorretto di questi scienziati, che hanno reso un pessimo servizio alla scienza stessa.
Il fatto che i giudici fossero abruzzesi non c’entra nulla.
Semmai si può dire che il capo d’imputazione è leggermente forzato e che la pena è eccessiva (ma per omicidio colposo potevano beccarsi 16 anni…) e che bastava semplicemente radiarli dai pubblici uffici, ma in base alle memorie del pubblico ministero, evidentemente ci stavano i 6 anni di reclusione.
Per quanto riguarda quanto scritto dalla signora Maggi: quanto da lei scritto è FALSO, perché costruttori e tecnici responsabili della costruzione degli edifici crollati sono attualmente sotto processo, e lo stesso vale per costruttori e tecnici che hanno costruito gli edifici crollati nel terremoto in Emilia. Evitiamo di diffondere notizie false, per favore;).
Cordialità.
Alex Roe says
Caro Luca,
Allora, sarò costretto a rispondenti in il mio brutto Italiano scritto.
Per prima cosa, grazia per aver fornito una punta di vista italiana.
Cosi, i scienziati della commissione sono stati trovati colpevole di non avere stabilito e comunicato il rischio di un forte terremoto. Ma prevede qualsiasi terremoto e’ impossibile ed e’ anche impossibile sapere quanto sara’ forte nel caso che capitasse. Cosi e’ impossibile esprimere un opinione sulla probabilità di un terremoto forte. Piu’ o meno il commissione ha detto proprio questo.
Nessuno e’ capace di valutare il rischio di un terremoto.
Anche io sono molto curioso da vedere la motivazione.
Riguardante il fatto che Il fatto che i giudici fossero abruzzesi, c’entra e’ c’entra parecchio. Ad esempio, qualcuno ammazza la tua moglie. Tu sei arrestato per l’omicidio. Finisci in tribunale davanti i giudici – uno e’ il padre della tua moglie, l’altra e’ la sua sorella. Tutti quanti ti odiano. Il processo sarebbe obiettivo? O ci sara’ un collegamento emozionale tra i giudici e’ il caso?
In fine, lo so io che i costruttori ecc. ecc. sono sotto processo. Ma forse anche in questa situazione i giudici non devono essere Abruzzese.
Per ora, il caso degli scienziati riflette male sulla giustizia italiana.
Ma, aspettiamo la motivazione.
Un saluto,
Alex
Francesca Maggi says
While I totally disagree with the sentencing, I have three problems with this entire tawdry affair:
1. Holding these scientists responsible for the deaths is like holding the security personnel at WTC 1 who told people – as broken glass, furniture, plane parts & debris was flying around outside Tower2 – to go back to their offices responsible for the deaths of 3000 people on Sept 11th.
2. These scientists are right to resign over the indictment, but personally, they need to fold the entire “Commission for the Prediction & Prevention of Earthquakes Great Risk Assessment Bureau” given that there is not a scientist on earth (including them in their defense) who says they can Predict or Prevent earthquakes. So what are they blubbering on about? Probably at tax payer euros.
3. It is criminal that the builders, city officials on the take, and everyone else responsible for building & enforcing building codes in all the newer (non-sismic) bldgs that fell in Abruzzo are a) Not on trial b) free to buy more shoddy cement and c) still getting govt contracts. These are the real assassins, not the earthquake, not the scientists.
Alex Roe says
Hi Francesca,
Re 3) I think you will find that the builders, city officials, and everyone else responsible for building & enforcing building codes are on trial.
Whether they will be definitively convicted is another matter, but the matter is much more complex than the case of the scientists, or that is what will be argued. In actual fact, all one needs to do is to look at signed various approvals and permits – which should not be too difficult.
Best,
Alex
Marcia says
I certainly agree with the above statements. How in the world can they act like gods about an “act of God”? It is ultimately an embarrassment for Italy that such a judgment occurred and shows a real “backwardness” in their understanding of the earthquake process. If a building is collapsing due to faulty construction, go after the builders, the contractors, etc. not the scientists.
P. Gallagher says
Like Noel above, I think the verdict was madness, and more in keeping with a banana republic. Sure, we have to keep open minds, the full facts may not have been revealed, but it is a verdict that must be questioned. I’m not in Italy, so I can’t gauge public opinion, but I hope for Italy’s sake that people speak out. Some aspects of The Italian Justice system are ridiculous beyond belief and bring nothing but shame to a beautiful country that deserves so much better. How does imprisoning experts because they didn’t speak up encourage future assessments? It will have the opposite effect and stifle dialogue and reasoning. Who will now accept such responsibilities? In a way all this reminds me of Italy’s libel laws – nobody can say anything for fear of being fined and prosecuted, and so the rich and powerful get away with anything. It’s wake up time for Italy. The country seems to have fallen asleep staring at it’s own navel.
Noel says
I was stunned by the decision. I would never have predicted a guilty verdict. Yes there have been some odd verdicts in Italy in the past but this took me completely by surprise.
Since Monday I’ve spent some time reading various reports hoping to distil the facts and understand how these scientists could be found guilty. I even took the unusual step (for me) of wading through some very strange and sometimes disturbing comments.
I’m no wiser. I just don’t get it.
It doesn’t seem like justice to me. Since people are killed by falling buildings I would have thought going after builders, planners, architects, surveyors and politicians would make more sense.
Is that happening?
Many families suffered and continue to suffer due to this tragedy. I can’t imagine their grief.
But Monday’s verdict doesn’t seem anything like justice.
Now I’m not so naive that I think the rule of law equates to justice, but to jail scientists for not warning of the potential dangers strongly enough seems bizarre.
Earthquake prediction is not an exact science. I’m sure we’ll get better at it but right now…well the journey has a way to go.
What if we jailed politicians for not warning the population that much of what is promised in a campaign will never be forthcoming, for approving a system that allows inappropriate buildings to be erected or for just simply lying…but I guess I’m showing my naivety now.
Yes I believe this verdict was madness but I have an open mind. I’m willing to listen to an opposing viewpoint. But right now I can’t see my opinion changing.
That was a good very article Alex – thank you.