Siesmologists Beware

That's one of the most offensively stupid legal proceedings I've ever heard of.

You are much too kind. That idiot should be disbenched or disrobed, or whatever other ceremony strips a dolt from any power over other persons.

I saw the headline on the news but didn't bother to read it. Italy has a funny legal system - actually it seems to not be a legal system at all but rather a punishment system. Whenever the local powers decide something the magistrate goes and punishes.

Law in Europe is still very much based on a few hundred years back - the rich and powerful generally prevail.

So help me understand the Italian way of thinking. If they have another major earthquake between now and trial time will that be caused by the Gods expressing anger at the Italian government or will it be caused by the scientists expressing their anger and striking back at their captors?

I need this help because I come from a part of the world where we learn enough reading, writing, math and science that we can understand that some things are just WAY TOO COMPLEX to predict with accuracy better than a few hundred years or so.

This is truly anti-science; much more so that this:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/68998/The-Antiscience-Strikes-Again

I guess geologists in Italy need to issue generalized, vague 'predictions' like astrologers, so they can claim they issued a 'warning' when an earthquake occurs but be ignored the thousands of times the 'prediction' passes without incidence.

Not that it would help anyway. Politicians in and around New Orleans had been warned it was just a matter of time before a big hurricane would strike and break the inadequate levies but they ignored the warnings and never improved the levies. And we know how that turned out.

This case is no more idiotic than holding a fast food restaurant financially liable when someone spills a hot cup of coffee while driving...

However, there are some differences. First of all, there is a significant difference between Roman-based legal systems and the English Common Law system (such as the US used to ascribe to), in that, in Roman systems, the accused must prove innocence, while in English Common Law, the accuser must prove guilt.

Now, in this case, the scientists in question apparently issued a report in which they claimed that the risk of an earthquake in this particular vicinity was minimal. The claim appears to be that, as a result of this, victims were lulled in to a false sense of security and did not take protective action. Never mind that there was very little time between the issuance of the report and the actual event, or that no one has yet figured out how to protect oneself from an earthquake, or how to anticipate such an event with sufficient accuracy to allow for orderly evacuation for saving lives. The point is, the scientists seemed to promote the idea that there was no danger, and this apparent incompetence resulted in significant loss of life. Ergo, it they should be held accountable.

Sort of like selling hot coffee at a drive-thru window...

Now, think of the implications when Vesuvius blows its top once more and wipes out Naples...

That's pretty weird. Having to prove innocence is like the Unholy Inquisition. Any dingdong could could accuse you of something, and it would be up to you to prove your innocence. That's the kind of bogus court system one might expect in an Islamist or communist country, but Italy?

Europe in general - nothing to do with Islamist or communist though some do fit in.

Ask how many countries around the world have the law that the debts of the parents are passed on to the children - I don't know but some still have that law.

I don't know where presumption of innocence originated (and will try to look it up). It might be interesting to see what various legal jurisdictions around the world do about this.

Magna Carta - [just assuming]

I suspect "presumption of guilt" is derived from Papal law. French law is the same.

Hi Tornado

From the comments , it looks like Mr. Berlusconi's whining/propaganda against the Italian magistrates is having some success on the media.

In all fairness and in defense of the politically independent judicial system in Italy, Mr. Bertolaso, in charge of civil protection, failed to give any kind of alarm to the public after many seismic shocks had already been occurring in L'Aquila and it's province, (Mr. Bertolaso is a Berlusconi protege' and under investigation for other legal improprieties).

A seismologist was calling every official, based on his radon analysis that a big quake was imminent. He was totally ignored by Mr. Bertolaso who considered him "a ballbuster".

BTW, re: earthquake forecasting, this article is quite interesting, you decide, would you like to be warned?

Cheers

Vince

http://www.itacomm.net/EQL/engbent1908.pdf

A quick Wikipedia search turned up:
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ^[1] (Latin: the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies), is a Latin legal term used to refer to the principle of presumption of innocence.

So apparently the concept is quite old, even though it may have been applied inconsistently since Roman times, if even then. It is beginning to sound as though some European (and other) countries are still in the Dark Ages.

[But then I've also heard of informal polls in which people claim that the U.S. "Bill of Rights" (Amendments 1-10 to the Constitution) is deemed "radical".]

That is the reason many of the first arrivals arrived at the shores of the future US.

My mother mentioned that both sides of my family may have gotten cheap trips across the ocean - no doubt where they would have stood.

Indeed! Some constitutions (such as the Russian one) pay lip service to this concept, but fail to back it up with adequate procedural safeguards.

Apparently, the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" predates the Magna Carta by millennia- one finds reference to the concept in Greek and Roman sources, and at least one source cites a reference from the Old Testament (although this may be an "interpreted" reading of the original, rather than a clear statement of the concept). I find nothing in the Magna Carta that specifically defines the concept (although the original was written in Latin, and I do not have a decent translation of the original). The Magna Carta was actually preceded by a similar document by over 100 years (the "Great Charter" of Henry I, issued in 1100, vs. the Magna Carta originally issued in 1215). Actually, only about 3 of the original 60-some clauses of the Magna Carta are still on the books...

As to presumption of innocence, which is supposedly a pillar of US jurisprudence, there have been a number of cases in recent years where this has been abrogated. Specifically, the OJ Simpson case (prosecutors failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt- but he was subsequently deprived of personal assets in spite of this). The Menendez brothers, who were tried several times without conviction, until they ran out of money to pay their lawyers. And, of course, there is the RICO law, which essentially says the government can deny you access to your assets until you prove your innocence. There way too many examples of this trend in the US for comfort...