[gwnn]

I wanted to reply to this in the other thread but why not here?

billw55 said:

.. the conviction was also voided once, by an Italian judge, with pretty scathing language for the case and its prosecution. So which actions of the Italian court system shall we accept as correct? Perhaps the conviction of geologists for failing to predict an earthquake.

I was going to post "I don't know what exactly happened but I bet the truth is more complicated than that." Assuming the Wikipedia article has accurate translations/facts, the decision seems much less stupid than just "hey you did not predict the earthquake! GUILTY!"

This is the relevant part of the Wikipedia article:

Quote

Boschi had called a major earthquake "unlikely", while not entirely excluding the possibility. De Bernardinis had informed the public that there was "no danger".[8] The prosecutors cited a scientific opinion that the low-level tremors ahead of 6 April quake were typical of the seismic activity preceding major convulsions, but the defendants had classified them as a "normal geological phenomenon".[9] They were criticised in court for being "falsely reassuring" and Judge Marco Billi gave them a six-year jail sentence on 22 October 2012,[7] reasoning that they had provided "an assessment of the risks that was incomplete, inept, unsuitable, and criminally mistaken".[91][92] They were also banned from ever holding public office again and had to pay court costs and damages.

Let's say it is true that 20% of the time when there are low-level tremors in a similar geological area, a large earthquake follows, and the experts should have known this. Would you not agree people saying an earthquake is unlikely/there is no danger are doing something wrong? Or if this probability is hard to determine (let's say, the best we can do is 1%-30%), is it not more responsible to say "sorry, we don't know for sure, predicting earthquakes to any degree of accuracy is very difficult."? I guess you could say that they want to sound more knowledgeable than they are and they guessed that even if the probability is 30%, it will have a positive effect on their careers 70% of the time. The only part of the verdict I don't understand is why there were identical verdicts to all seven defendants. Surely they are not equally culpable.

[mike777]

you seem to miss all the points

If only 20% of the facts are facts...then rubbish.

btw 20% is huge....in this case....far less.

[gwnn]

Maybe you missed all the ifs in my opening post? I think most people who disagree with the verdict disagree because they think the trial is a non-starter (it is absurd to hold the scientists culpable, no matter what the facts).

[mike777]

gwnn, on 2014-July-24, 02:08, said:

Maybe you missed all the ifs in my opening post? I think most people who disagree with the verdict disagree because they think the trial is a non-starter (it is absurd to hold the scientists culpable, no matter what the facts).

Here is where we disagree....I hold the scientists culpable...you claim not matter what that they are innocent.

I prefer to let the evidence dictate and do not assume.

In any event this case it a tiny micro the greater Italy in so many important issues

[gwnn]

mike777, on 2014-July-24, 02:19, said:

Here is where we disagree....I hold the scientists culpable...you claim not matter what that they are innocent.

I prefer to let the evidence dictate and do not assume.

In any event this case it a tiny micro the greater Italy in so many important issues

No, that is not what I claim. Can you read?

[Trinidad]

The problem with predicting earth quakes is that it is much harder than predicting the weather and has much larger consequences when the prediction goes wrong... either way.

Suppose the geologists would have concluded that there was a significant probability that there would be an earth quake. They would have rung all the alarm bells. People would evacuate and nothing happens... What will they (the people and the experts) do the next time?

The fact that some other scientists would have decided differently is hardly relevant. Universal agreement among scientists is extremely rare. What would we have done to those scientists if we would have listened to them and had evacuated the area, with traffic accidents killing a few families as well as significant economic damage, and there would not have been an earth quake?

To me, as a scientist, the key question is: Did the scientists, with the facts and knowledge they had before the earth quake, did the best they can to answer the complicated question with integrity? And as society, we will have to accept that science can predict some things with fabulous accuracy while being horribly uncertain about others. Now, I don't have the facts, and I am not a geologist, so I can't answer the question. But it might well be a case of what we call in Dutch: "Surgery successful, patient diseased." (All decisions were right, but the outcome is wrong.)

To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a scientist made mistakes on a criminal level (i.e. mandating years in jail) seems practically impossible to me. To me, it would mean that the scientists did nothing to the public, but sent their friends and family to the other side of the country. If the friends and family remained at home, you can be sure that the scientists made the decision that matched their best understanding of the situation. With the few facts that I know from the case, it seemed to me at the time that the scientists were convicted for not being able to do the impossible.

Rik

[gwnn]

So you think it's OK to say "there is no danger" as a synonym for "I don't know how much of a danger there is. These patterns are consistent with a major earthquake but since the a priori probability is very low, the a posteriori probability is also not very high. There is a lot of uncertainty. " (this is just speculation on my part -- I don't know all the facts other than their claim that there was little or no danger).

[Cyberyeti]

The scientists should give their best assessment. "In our opinion there is a 10% chance of a major earthquake" or whatever , then leave it to others to decide what to do.

[WellSpyder]

Trinidad, on 2014-July-24, 02:50, said:

With the few facts that I know from the case, it seemed to me at the time that the scientists were convicted for not being able to do the impossible.
Rik

I am a forecaster, though in the perhaps rather less critical field of macroeconomic forecasting rather than earthquakes. The only certainty about our forecasts is that they will prove to be wrong, to a greater or lesser degree. Should I look for a new job as soon as possible?

[helene_t]

Let's say the scientists should have known that there was a 20%, or 10%, or w/e%, chance of a major earthquake but because of some mistake (maybe someone confused minutes with seconds when entering the data points into his software, or looked at the worng column in a table) they thought it was 0.001% or whatever. OK, the scientists made a serious mistake and maybe deserve to be sacked. But 6 years in jail? I think that's ridicolous.

I would agree with the jail sentence if it could be proven that they downplayed the risk because of some personal stakes.

[gwnn]

What if the engineers who build a bridge enter centimeters instead of kilometers (when configuring some security mechanism) and the bridge collapses, killing 100 people? Are they only culpable if they secretly advised their family members to avoid it? The two cases are not identical but I can't put my finger on why not.

[helene_t]

gwnn, on 2014-July-24, 04:55, said:

What if the engineers who build a bridge enter centimeters instead of kilometers and the bridge collapses, killing 100 people? Are they only culpable if they secretly advised their family members to avoid it?

I would say so. What's the point of sending people to prisson for doing their work carelessly? It's not like their peers will start being more carefull in order not to have to go to prisson.

IMO punishment makes the most sense when someone bases an offense on a cynical C/B analysis. Tax evaders and license killers for example. It also is abt to send a signal about what behaviour is officially considered immoral. Animal abuse, for example. And finnally it makes sense to lock up psychotic mass murderers so at least they don't kill anyone while in prisson.

It also makes sense to punish people for unacceptable risky behaviour that does not lead to disasters. Driving while drunk for example. Because even if someone thinks he won't cause any accidents he might still take into consideration that he might end up in prisson anyway.

But punishing people for careless behaviour that happens to cause disasters - I don't see what it achieves.

Now if the relatives of the victims filed civil lawsuits against the engineers (or the enigneers' employers) I would find it more logical.

[Cyberyeti]

helene_t, on 2014-July-24, 05:06, said:

I would say so. What's the point of sending people to prisson for doing their work carelessly? It's not like their peers will start being more carefull in order not to have to go to prisson.

IMO punishment makes the most sense when someone bases an offense on a cynical C/B analysis. Tax evaders and license killers for example. It also is abt to send a signal about what behaviour is officially considered immoral. Animal abuse, for example. And finnally it makes sense to lock up psychotic mass murderers so at least they don't kill anyone while in prisson.

It also makes sense to punish people for unacceptable risky behaviour that does not lead to disasters. Driving while drunk for example. Because even if someone thinks he won't cause any accidents he might still take into consideration that he might end up in prisson anyway.

But punishing people for careless behaviour that happens to cause disasters - I don't see what it achieves.

Now if the relatives of the victims filed civil lawsuits against the engineers (or the enigneers' employers) I would find it more logical.

I agree with this, the case where a motor company decided it would cost them less to pay out when one of their models' fuel tank exploded if hit in a very particular place, than to redesign and move the fuel tank is exactly the sort of case that needs punishing.

Making a mistake is not criminal unless negligent or reckless.

[billw55]

About the engineer. His penalty might include civil liabilities, loss of license, loss of employment, etc. But a criminal conviction requires intent, or should. Same should go for the Italian scientists in this case.

Although, I have heard of something called criminal negligence, but not sure of its legal definition, or if it could apply in this case.
.
Also consider that such a verdict essentially destroys any chance of getting a honest scientific opinion in the future. It will be a long time before an Italian seismologist says anything except "there might be an earthquake," regardless of the circumstances. Or will they now worry that unnecessary warnings might also land them in prison?

Indeed, Italy might find themselves with a shortage of seismologists (something they likely need) as some change fields, or seek employment in other nations, or young scientists no longer consider the field appealing.

[phil_20686]

helene_t, on 2014-July-24, 05:06, said:

I would say so. What's the point of sending people to prisson for doing their work carelessly? It's not like their peers will start being more carefull in order not to have to go to prisson.

IMO punishment makes the most sense when someone bases an offense on a cynical C/B analysis. Tax evaders and license killers for example. It also is abt to send a signal about what behaviour is officially considered immoral. Animal abuse, for example. And finnally it makes sense to lock up psychotic mass murderers so at least they don't kill anyone while in prisson.

It also makes sense to punish people for unacceptable risky behaviour that does not lead to disasters. Driving while drunk for example. Because even if someone thinks he won't cause any accidents he might still take into consideration that he might end up in prisson anyway.

But punishing people for careless behaviour that happens to cause disasters - I don't see what it achieves.

Now if the relatives of the victims filed civil lawsuits against the engineers (or the enigneers' employers) I would find it more logical.

So in this case, that is not what happens.


It would usually be the corporation that is liable not the employee, unless the corporation could prove it was his negligence, rather than their poor procedures, which caused the problem. For example here, it would appear that the company that employed the engineer should have had some form of review procedures in place that would usually catch this error. People making errors is a normal part of day to day business in every field, and there should be some compliance procedures. So maybe its not even the engineer, its his supervisor who should have caught it. That is why we have management. Besides, "the engineer" doesn't really exists, he is the ceremonial head of a team of lots of people with varying degrees of experience and skill. The same thing happens in software all the time, except that usually no one dies. Usually the CEO will carry the can for not putting the right procedures in place - e.g. the Macondo Oil Spill and Tony Hayward.

If the Scientist was asked in a private capacity, then he can say whatever he likes, like a newspaper columnist. If he was acting in his official capacity as someone in charge of making evacuation decisions, then they should have had some procedure in place both for making a consensus decision among the forecasters, and for communication that decision, and not just put some random guy who appears vaguely qualified in front of a camera. If you do have procedures, and they turn out to be wrong, then we just have to live with it. If they failed to follow the agreed procedure for making reassuring statements, then, and only then, does this court case make sense.

[Trinidad]

phil_20686, on 2014-July-24, 06:49, said:

It would usually be the corporation that is liable not the employee, unless the corporation could prove it was his negligence, rather than their poor procedures, which caused the problem.

As far as I know, these scientists were working for a government agency. They went to jail, the government stayed.

Rik

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-July-24, 06:08, said:

Making a mistake is not criminal unless negligent or reckless.

Isn't that what the court effectively decided -- this mistake was negligent or reckless.

Maybe the actual problem is that they didn't express the uncertainty of the prediction well enough. They said that there was little chance of a quake, politicians took this as definitive, and then there was a resulting disaster when the prediction turned out to be wrong.

However, suppose they said something like "There's a 10% chance of a quake, +/- 30%." What would the politicians have done in response? Would they really have called for an evacuation on these odds?

[FM75]

I am not sure what the question is here. If the question is whether a finding of a court was "correct", then it is clear that nothing in this thread has cited any primary (legislative) nor secondary (case law) for working out a correct legal decision.

I am not a lawyer. But in US law, both would be relevant in a trial or even the settlement of a complaint.

[gwnn]

It's more a question of "Under which circumstances would the decision be correct?" I think most people critical of the trial have the notion that scientists should never be culpable for making inaccurate/misleading predictions, even if it is demonstrated that the inaccuracy made was far beyond what could be reasonably be expected of them (by other experts). I don't know whether I buy that. To go into an actual "guilty or not?" thread we would have to be seismologists and read all relevant data which is probably not worth it, so talking about hypotheticals is a decent alternative.

[gwnn]

http://news.sciencem...ins-his-verdict
bold face mine

Quote

Following his conviction of the seven commission members on 22 October, Judge Marco Billi had 90 days to make public his reasoning, and in the event did so with just 3 days to spare. The 950-page document Billi released, known as the "motivazione," shows him to have largely accepted the prosecutors' argument. He explains that the trial was not against science but against seven individuals who failed to carry out their duty as laid down by the law. The scientists were not convicted for failing to predict an earthquake, something Billi says was impossible to do, but for their complete failure to properly analyze, and to explain, the threat posed by the swarm. Billi ruled that this failure led to the deaths of 29 of the 309 people killed in the quake and to the injuries of four others. "The deficient risk analysis was not limited to the omission of a single factor," he writes, "but to the underestimation of many risk indicators and the correlations between those indicators."

http://www.livescien...ke-verdict.html
Claims that only half of major earthquakes in Italy are preceded by swarms and 2% of swarms are followed by a major earthquake, but I'm guessing it's tough to cluster these things properly so claiming no danger does seem irresponsible. Plus I'm also wondering how much the a priori probability is of there being a major earthquake in a given week in this sort of zone. Maybe it is 0.02%, then media could have said "MAJOR EARTHQUAKE 100 TIMES MORE LIKELY THAN BEFORE" which is no doubt more alarmist that it needed to be, but you know, some people are OK with a 2% chance of dying because avoiding it would be very inconvenient for them, some others are not. Informing citizens accurately about this seems to be very important. I wonder how they got this number 29/309, though.

Another thing that caught my attention:
http://www.timeshigh...742.fullarticle

Quote

In the aftermath of the 2009 quake, attention focused on the problem of protecting old city centres. Most of the buildings that collapsed or were damaged in L’Aquila were indeed centuries old, with some significant exceptions. Eight students at the local university were killed by the collapse of a dormitory built in the 1960s and renovated in 2000. The technicians responsible for the restoration of the dorm were tried and sentenced to four years in prison.