Italian court acquits seismologists convicted of manslaughte

[dragon]

I'm sure you all remember when they were found guilty of manslaughter.

An appeals court today overturned the 2012 manslaughter convictions of six Italian earthquake scientists in the wake of a 2009 earthquake that killed 309 people in the town of L’Aquila, as reported by ScienceInsider and NatureNews. Each scientist had been sentenced to six years in prison along with a government official. The official has not been acquitted, but he did have his sentenced reduced to two years.

Amidst a swarm of small earthquakes (and false predictions of major earthquakes by a technician at the nearby National Institute of Nuclear Physics) near the town of L'Aquila in early 2009, the Civil Protection Department convened a meeting of the six scientists. Some public statements resulting from that meeting—specifically statements by Civil Protection Department official Benardo De Bernardinis—were seen to have gone too far, assuring the public that risk of a dangerous earthquake was very low. When a magnitude 6.3 earthquake just six days later killed 309, those statements were blamed for some the deaths as some people apparently failed to leave their homes, which then collapsed.

As Ars reported, a judge ruled that these seven individuals were culpable because of their comments and found the group guilty of manslaughter in 2012. The defendants appealed, resulting in today’s decision.

According to reports, the families of some of the earthquake’s victims plan to appeal this decision in Italy’s highest appeals court, so the outcome may change yet again.

link

[Thanas]

So like people familiar with the system said, if the sentence was unjust, it can be set aside on appeal. I think we can all stop with the "Italy is anti-science" BS now.

[Enigma]

So like people familiar with the system said, if the sentence was unjust, it can be set aside on appeal. I think we can all stop with the "Italy is anti-science" BS now.

Not really, there's plans to appeal the appeal. So they may still remain in jail.

[Thanas]

So? Appeals are part of the normal process.

[SCRawl]

Forgive my ignorance of Italian courts, but the article says that the families of the earthquake victims are planning to appeal the decision. In this part of the world it is the prosecutor who would make this decision. I don't understand why this decision would be left in the hands of anyone other than a government-employed attorney (or his political masters). The only thing I can think of that makes any sense is that the reporter received statements from the families who expressed their preference that the decision be appealed.

Also:

Each scientist had been sentenced to six years in prison along with a government official.

This makes me think that each of the scientists has to spend six years in prison with a government official (whose job, presumably, is to make that prison sentence worse). Which sounds hilarious, though of course it's kind of a tough gig for the government officials.

[Thanas]

Lol what? A government official was also sentenced to prison because he too allegedly messed up.

In what fantasy impressions of Italians (and Europeans) do you live that you would even think of such a ludicrous idea?

[SCRawl]

Lol what? A government official was also sentenced to prison because he too allegedly messed up.

In what fantasy impressions of Italians (and Europeans) do you live that you would even think of such a ludicrous idea?

No, I get that that was the actual meaning. It's just that the way it was written made me think of this as another interpretation -- a much funnier one.

[Thanas]

Sorry, I am a GERMAN and thus unable to detect humour.

[Grumman]

So? Appeals are part of the normal process.

Appeals are a part of the normal process that exists to catch your fuck-ups. To use death row as an example, the fact that people are acquitted on appeal while waiting to be executed does not mean the system works. It means that the person who put them there in the first place fucked up by sentencing someone to death despite clearly not being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and should be prevented from doing so again.

[Thanas]

Appeals are a part of the normal process that exists to catch your fuck-ups. To use death row as an example, the fact that people are acquitted on appeal while waiting to be executed does not mean the system works. It means that the person who put them there in the first place fucked up by sentencing someone to death despite clearly not being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and should be prevented from doing so again.

....that is not how the appeals process works.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm still a bit uncomfortable with giving the prosecution* the power to appeal a verdict that sets the defendant free. My main problem with it is that it artificially extends the legal process for people seeking to clear their name from a wrongful conviction. You end up having to spend months or years of your life going "gee, if the next level of court decides to be asinine, I might go back to jail again."

*Let alone the families of the alleged 'victims' of a manslaughter that may not actually be manslaughter, who are the most obviously biased party in the whole case...

[Gaidin]

In all seriousness, what made these seismologists special and at what point in the legal process do all seismologists in Italy throw up their hands and say "Fuck it, I'm fucked because I can't predict Earthquakes as well as the lady down the street wants me to so I'm moving across the border."

[SCRawl]

I'm still a bit uncomfortable with giving the prosecution* the power to appeal a verdict that sets the defendant free. My main problem with it is that it artificially extends the legal process for people seeking to clear their name from a wrongful conviction. You end up having to spend months or years of your life going "gee, if the next level of court decides to be asinine, I might go back to jail again."

*Let alone the families of the alleged 'victims' of a manslaughter that may not actually be manslaughter, who are the most obviously biased party in the whole case...

The prosecution can always appeal a "not guilty" verdict. Judges sometimes make errors in the application of laws, and if a judge makes such an error in favour of a defendant then the prosecution should always have leave to appeal.

In this case, the charge itself seems so mind-numbingly asinine that I question the sanity of any court which would entertain it any longer than it would take to dismiss it outright, so the idea of appealing it seems even more ridiculous.

As for the families having any say in the decision to appeal, I gather from the word choice of the rest of the article that english is not the first language of the writer, so perhaps some precision is wanting in the report.

[slebetman]

In all seriousness, what made these seismologists special and at what point in the legal process do all seismologists in Italy throw up their hands and say "Fuck it, I'm fucked because I can't predict Earthquakes as well as the lady down the street wants me to so I'm moving across the border."

It's not even about accuracy. Technically they made very accurate perdictions: that the probablity of an earthquake happening when it did given the data they had was low. But low probability does not mean that it can't happen or else nobody would win any lottery ever in history.

[LaCroix]

I'm still a bit uncomfortable with giving the prosecution* the power to appeal a verdict that sets the defendant free. My main problem with it is that it artificially extends the legal process for people seeking to clear their name from a wrongful conviction. You end up having to spend months or years of your life going "gee, if the next level of court decides to be asinine, I might go back to jail again.

This is the old problem of understanding european law - adversial vs inquisitive courts. There is a difference. European courts don't have the odds stacked against the defendant, so there focus for having appeals is to get a correct verdict, and not on 'making it more fair for the defendant against a prosecution who is allowed to lie to get him'.

And even in the US, prosecution can sometimes appeal a not guilty verdict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeo ... ted_States

The government is not permitted to appeal or retry the defendant once jeopardy attaches to a trial unless the case does not conclude. Conditions which constitute "conclusion" of a case include

After the entry of an acquittal,
whether a directed verdict before the case is submitted to the jury,[47]
a directed verdict after a deadlocked jury,[48]
an appellate reversal for sufficiency (except by direct appeal to a higher appellate court),[49]
or an "implied acquittal" via conviction of a lesser included offence.[50]
re-litigating against the same defense a fact necessarily found by the jury in a prior acquittal,[51] even if the jury hung on other counts.[52] In such a situation, the government is barred by collateral estoppel.

In these cases the trial is concluded and the prosecution is precluded from appealing or retrying the defendant over the offense to which they were acquitted.

This principle does not prevent the government from appealing a pre-trial motion to dismiss[53] or other non-merits dismissal,[54] or a directed verdict after a jury conviction,[55] nor does it prevent the trial judge from entertaining a motion for reconsideration of a directed verdict, if the jurisdiction has so provided by rule or statute.[56] Nor does it prevent the government from retrying the defendant after an appellate reversal other than for sufficiency,[57] including habeas corpus,[58] or "thirteenth juror" appellate reversals notwithstanding sufficiency[59] on the principle that jeopardy has not "terminated." There may also be an exception for judicial bribery,[60] but not jury bribery.

The "dual sovereignty" doctrine allows a federal prosecution of an offense to proceed regardless of a previous state prosecution for that same offense[61] and vice versa[62] because "an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each."[63] The doctrine is solidly entrenched in the law, but there has been a traditional reluctance in the federal executive branch to gratuitously wield the power it grants.[64]

Another exception is that the perpetrator can be retried by court martial in a military court, if they have been previously acquitted by a civilian court, and are members of the military.[65]

[Simon_Jester]

I'm still a bit uncomfortable with giving the prosecution* the power to appeal a verdict that sets the defendant free. My main problem with it is that it artificially extends the legal process for people seeking to clear their name from a wrongful conviction. You end up having to spend months or years of your life going "gee, if the next level of court decides to be asinine, I might go back to jail again.

This is the old problem of understanding european law - adversial vs inquisitive courts. There is a difference. European courts don't have the odds stacked against the defendant, so there focus for having appeals is to get a correct verdict, and not on 'making it more fair for the defendant against a prosecution who is allowed to lie to get him'.

No, I get that. The thing is, saying "we don't need rule X in our courts, because our courts are fair and impartial!" could be applied to almost any principle of due process. You could use it to 'prove' that defendants don't need the right to know the nature of the charges, or that they don't need counsel to advocate for them, or that they don't need the right to a reasonably speedy trial (which is the issue at stake here in my opinion).

At what point does saying "our defendants don't need all these rights because our courts are fair and balanced! become a cover for, well, creating a court system that is denying defendants a basic right they ought to have?

And even in the US, prosecution can sometimes appeal a not guilty verdict.

I didn't say they couldn't. I said I don't like appeals to a not guilty verdict. This is regardless of whether the US does it or not.

I mean, I might make an exception if the jury got bribed or something (yes, I know Wikipedia says that isn't a reason in the US, which is stupid). But in general I think that for the reason I listed, such appeals of not guilty verdicts should be made rare. This has nothing in particular to do with it being rare in the US except when a court case resolves in an unusual way.

[Okay, I think that a pre-trial dismissal of the case should be subject to appeal, but in that case if the appeals judge approves the dismissal by refusing to hear the case, it's over...]

[LaCroix]

No, I get that. The thing is, saying "we don't need rule X in our courts, because our courts are fair and impartial!" could be applied to almost any principle of due process. You could use it to 'prove' that defendants don't need the right to know the nature of the charges, or that they don't need counsel to advocate for them, or that they don't need the right to a reasonably speedy trial (which is the issue at stake here in my opinion).

At what point does saying "our defendants don't need all these rights because our courts are fair and balanced! become a cover for, well, creating a court system that is denying defendants a basic right they ought to have?

See, you don't get it. You think you do.
There is no right refused to the defendant. We only refuse to take a right away from the prosecution (the right to appeal a decision they believe to be wrong).
On the other hand, we take the right of the prosecution to lie (which it does have in the USA), because they are legally bound to be just as fair and impartial as the judge. If they have evidence, they NEED to give ALL of it to the defendant. If they see their evidence does indicate they are not guilty, they are required to end the trial. (In this case, they do seem to think there is some legal wriggle room, though.)

Even the WINNER can appeal a verdict, if he thinks it wasn't good enough for him.

Under such a system, false first instance not-guilty sentences are about as common as false guilty sentences. Therefore, both sides need the possibility to appeal to 2nd and 3rd instance, if needed.

'Speedy' trial is subservient to 'just/correct' - they do have the right to a CORRECT trial 'as speedy as possible' - that doesn't mean that everything else is thrown under the bus just so the thing is over, quickly.

Another thing is that our criminal trials are usually/mostly free of charge, unless you are guilty or you want an extremely expensive lawyer to represent you. If you are aquitted, the state will pay your legal fees (to a reasonable amount - see 'extremely expensive lawyer'). Even if you are convicted, your legal fees are covered to an extent, especially with a lawyer assigned to you by court.

Also, under most European laws, a trial is NOT 'over' if a verdict has been passed. That's common knowledge. Even when the news report of a verdict in prominent cases, they also add the qualifier "verdict is not valid, yet" if it hasn't been accepted by both parties, and also state the amount of time to ponder that has been given to the parties noit yet accepting it. It's only over after this time has passed or the parties have stated their acceptance of the verdict.

In total, wrong conviction numbers show that system to be superior to the US system.

[Flagg]

Can we all just stop for a second and marvel at how fucking stupid a group of people would have be to believe scientists of being able to predict Earthquakes to the point of putting them on trial for it?

[SCRawl]

Can we all just stop for a second and marvel at how fucking stupid a group of people would have be to believe scientists of being able to predict Earthquakes to the point of putting them on trial for it?

There was a whole thread about that months ago. We're past it now, try to keep up

[Flagg]

Can we all just stop for a second and marvel at how fucking stupid a group of people would have be to believe scientists of being able to predict Earthquakes to the point of putting them on trial for it?

There was a whole thread about that months ago. We're past it now, try to keep up

I just think everyone should be reminded of the abject absurdity before I hopped back into my time machine Delorean that only goes to boring events, like them capping the St. Louis Arch, or Nixon's funeral.

[Beowulf]

The prosecution doesn't have rights. The prosecution is the government. Rights are things that people have to protect them from the government.

Prosecutors don't have a de-jure right to lie. The fact that they have limited checks on their power may allow them to lie with impunity... but it's not a right for them to lie, and they can be held to account for such. See Mike Nifong: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1763323/

[LaCroix]

The prosecution doesn't have rights. The prosecution is the government. Rights are things that people have to protect them from the government.

Prosecutors don't have a de-jure right to lie. The fact that they have limited checks on their power may allow them to lie with impunity... but it's not a right for them to lie, and they can be held to account for such. See Mike Nifong: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1763323/

Yeah - non-native speake. I messed up with conveying my thoughts..

I meant unlike in the US, where the adversial prosecution has a duty to convict, and might even withhold evidence or do plea bargains to get a conviction at all costs, an inquisitive prosecution has a duty to find the truth, just like the judge has. So in our courts, there are basically two judges. It's normal for inquisitive prosecution to call for an acquittal, themselves, when they come to the conclusion that the accused is not guilty.

In this case, you will find that the official who was charged along with the scientist was not acquitted along with them, so there seems to be some legal issue. This is probably why the prosecution is trying to appeal - but we won't know, yet, with what little information we do have about the current verdict. Once transscripts are available, we will know.

[Coop D'etat]

The prosecution doesn't have rights. The prosecution is the government. Rights are things that people have to protect them from the government.

Prosecutors don't have a de-jure right to lie. The fact that they have limited checks on their power may allow them to lie with impunity... but it's not a right for them to lie, and they can be held to account for such. See Mike Nifong: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1763323/

Yeah - non-native speake. I messed up with conveying my thoughts..

I meant unlike in the US, where the adversial prosecution has a duty to convict, and might even withhold evidence or do plea bargains to get a conviction at all costs, an inquisitive prosecution has a duty to find the truth, just like the judge has. So in our courts, there are basically two judges. It's normal for inquisitive prosecution to call for an acquittal, themselves, when they come to the conclusion that the accused is not guilty.

In this case, you will find that the official who was charged along with the scientist was not acquitted along with them, so there seems to be some legal issue. This is probably why the prosecution is trying to appeal - but we won't know, yet, with what little information we do have about the current verdict. Once transscripts are available, we will know.

That's not how a prosecution is set up to work in an adversarial system. They have the discretion to drop cases and a positive ethical duty to do so if the evidence does not support the charge or if they have reasonable doubt as to the accused guilt (see rule 3.8 of the ABA rules of professional conduct). Their role isn't to pursue convictions but to be a minister of justice.

Further to what was said above, the state has the duty to disclose any exculpatory evidence in their possession in the American system (known as the Brady rule) just the same as in Italy (my country has essentially the same rule outlined in R v Stinchcombe).

Now if you're going to make a critic of the American system, it isn't on anything you've brought up or flaws in the adversarial system but that their system, particularly their habit of electing state attorneys rather than making them normal civil servants, has been known to incentivize prosecutors away from the responsiblity to make sober use of their discretion as a minister of justice.

[Thanas]

Can we all just stop for a second and marvel at how fucking stupid a group of people would have be to believe scientists of being able to predict Earthquakes to the point of putting them on trial for it?

It is not about them not being able to predict earthquakes. It is about them making statements that might have gone against a dutiful performance, which - surprise - can get you hauled on trial in almost every system.

[Simon_Jester]

While "gone against a dutiful performance" is grammatical English, it doesn't refer to anything I'm familiar with. Are you translating some German (or Italian) legal term directly?

Yeah - non-native speake. I messed up with conveying my thoughts..

I meant unlike in the US, where the adversial prosecution has a duty to convict, and might even withhold evidence or do plea bargains to get a conviction at all costs, an inquisitive prosecution has a duty to find the truth, just like the judge has. So in our courts, there are basically two judges. It's normal for inquisitive prosecution to call for an acquittal, themselves, when they come to the conclusion that the accused is not guilty.

Thing is, an adversarial prosecution is supposed to follow most of the same ethical rules as an inquisitorial prosecution, as Coop describes. Such as not going after people who they know are innocent, such as not lying to the defendant about the evidence against them.

It is a legitimate criticism of the American justice system in particular that prosecutors often behave unethically, and make unjust use of plea bargains, plus occasional grotesque breaches of ethics like withholding evidence from defendants. But that is not part of the basic constitutional rules of the system.

It'd be like criticizing all bureaucratic institutions on the grounds that some bureaucracies take bribes. That isn't a fault in bureaucracy as such; plenty of bureaucracies are free of corruption. That's a fault in corrupt bureaucracies in particular.
_________________________________

Also, LaCroix, you overlooked my actual argument. My main reason for not liking appeals of not guilty verdicts is the burden they place on individual innocent defendants. Even if someone else is covering the primary legal costs of the trial, it is a serious burden to be the subject of ongoing criminal trials or litigation.

Even if the state's prosecutor/investigators are presumed to be utterly fair, the fact remains that they are not seriously inconvenienced by pursuing the defendant- they're doing their job by prosecuting them for as long as they see fit to do so. And if they weren't prosecuting/investigating this defendant, they'd be going after someone else. It costs them very little to pursue whatever angles they happen to feel haven't been fully investigated.

But for the defendant this represents a period of months or years in which they must remain very much uncertain whether they will go free or get thrown in prison. Even after the great relief of having the first court ruled in their favor, they find that this is only the beginning and that the prosecution/investigation is going to keep chasing them.

I feel that this is an undue burden to put on innocent persons.