Dear Ernest,
I think this is not the case. I refer to ?purely vindictive reasons?.
Just like you, I have no experience of legal matters and I may be
speaking out of turn, but as far as I know, in Italy there exists, for
prosecutors and judges, ?the obligatoriness of criminal action?
(?obbligatorietà dell?azione penale? translated as ?mandatory
prosecution? by google translator).
The prosecution or action can start from complaints by private
individuals or by investigations made by the prosecutors or both. In
any case, however, the prosecution is mandatorily made in the public
interest, at least in theory. Even though the private individuals
retract their complaints (which might be vindictive), the prosecutor
has to proceed if there are enough criminal elements to proceed.
Andrea
Ernest Rutter <[log in to unmask]> ha scritto:
> A comment for thought.
>
> I have no experience of legal matters, and I may be speaking out
> of turn, but as I understand it a criminal prosecution can be
> brought in Italy by private individuals, which seems to be what has
> happened, for purely vindictive reasons. In other countries, like
> the UK, a criminal prosecution has to be in the public interest,
> otherwise is it blocked by the director of public prosecutions, so
> for that reason there is a distinction between civil and criminal
> prosecutions.
> As we are discovering, the prosecution of the Italian scientists
> does not appear to have been in the public interest, and perhaps the
> judge should have had the good sense to look ahead and realize this.
> The walk-out response of people in disaster mitigation and
> management areas was, unlike earthquakes, entirely predictable.
> Irrespective of the eventual outcome of this case, further down the
> line it is possible that Italian citizens may die because of the
> damage that the litigants and the judge have done to systems for
> reducing all natural hazards, as experts refuse to stick their necks
> out for fear of litigation. I trust the judge and litigants will
> sleep soundly in their beds.
>
> Ernie Rutter
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andrea Billi
> Sent: 25 October 2012 10:32
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Formal petition to the Italian government and media
>
> Roger,
>
> there will be for sure two further degrees of judgment: Appello and
> Cassazione. I think a reasonable estimate to conclude everything is
> about 3-4 years.
>
> ciao
> Andrea
>
>
>
>
> "Musson, Roger M.W." <[log in to unmask]> ha scritto:
>
>> And another thing, which I think I can safely raise here -
>>
>> Thanks to the torpid speed at which the Italian legal system moves,
>> this prosecution has taken three years to come to a verdict. How long
>> is the appeal going to take? Another year?
>>
>> In the meantime, scientists in Italy are resigning from any positions
>> of responsibility in disaster management; not just the high profile
>> ones reported in the news, but at lower levels as well.
>> In the face of a meltdown of the Italian disaster management
>> community, can the Italian state wait for the appeal to be resolved?
>>
>> There must be (I hope) discussions going on at a governmental level as
>> to whether to intervene quickly for the good of the nation. If it were
>> to appear that intervening looked like it was due to pressure from
>> foreigners, it might make intervention less likely rather than more
>> likely.
>>
>> Therefore I would counsel caution, and see what action our Italian
>> colleagues request.
>>
>> Roger Musson
>>
>>
>> From: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eldridge Moores
>> Sent: 24 October 2012 21:02
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Formal petition to the Italian government and media
>>
>> I think that it might be prudent to defer to our Italian colleagues in
>> formulating a judicious response, and I agree that we should do
>> nothing that would compromise the forthcoming appeals of the verdict
>> On Oct 24, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Carlyn S Buckler wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Bob - we need to be conscientious about what we
>> say. There is one point, however, that I have not heard made much of,
>> and in reading the transcripts from the Commissione (from colleagues
>> at University of Modena, Italy) and also reading the Scientific
>> America<blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/10/22/the-laquila
>> -verdict-a-judgment-not-against-science-but-against-a-failure-of-science-communication/#comment-6363> article commentary on the trial, I hope that it can somehow be addressed, and in keeping with Bob's
>> point.
>> The transcripts from the 2009 Commissione Nazionale dei
>> Grandi Rischi meeting show that it was called to gather information
>> that would "tranquilize the public" regarding their fear of
>> earthquakes. The scientists were not given the opportunity to talk to
>> the public; it was the politicians who devised the media response, not
>> the scientists. Yes, the scientist could have had better language when
>> talking to the politicians, but would that have made any difference?
>> When a politician who controls funding for your research, and may be
>> known for revoking that funding on a moment's notice for arbitrary
>> reasons, and who can guarantee that you may never work in your field
>> again, says that his/her committee needs information that will stop
>> public fear, that politician will ultimately dictate what is said, to
>> whom, and when.
>> Contrast that with the public communication of science during
>> the earthquakes in Emilia Romagna in May of2012. The University of
>> Modena Earth Science Dept. held public forums, gavepress releases, and
>> generally gave the public information on what they needed to do to
>> prepare for any subsequent events.
>> Following that, the Commissione Grandi Rischi declared that "There
>> are no reliable scientific methods of earthquake prediction in the
>> short term" but that "does not exclude the possibility that, although
>> less likely, the seismic activity could extend to areas adjacent to
>> those activated so far." This time, probably because the L'Aquila
>> trial was already underway, the politicians let the scientists speak
>> for themselves - and they did a great job.
>> In the many countries, we can sometimes take for granted the relative
>> freedom we have to do research, speak to the public (however effective
>> our skills may be), and that when our government says we'll have X
>> dollars of funding, in general we can count on that money being
>> available. But that isn't the case in all countries, and we need to
>> keep this in mind as we try to assess what the issues really are.
>>
>> Thank You -
>> Carlyn S. Buckler, Ph.D.
>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Please update your address book to
>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>. The
>> "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
>> address has been decommissioned on July 1, 2009.
>>
>> Eldridge Moores
>> Distinguished Professor Emeritus
>> Geology Department
>> One Shields Avenue
>> University of California
>> Davis, CA 95616-5270 USA
>> Tel: O +1-530-752-0352
>> H +1-530-756-4639
>> C +1 530 574 6733
>> Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>
>> "Civilization exists by geologic consent, subject to change without notice"
>> "Civilization has occurred between two ice ages"
>> (Will Durant)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is
>> subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of
>> this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it
>> is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC
>> may be stored in an electronic records management system.
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________
> Andrea Billi (PhD)
> Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, IGAG, c.o. Dipartimento Scienze
> della Terra, Sapienza Università di Roma, P.le A. Moro 5, 00185,
> Rome, Italy.
>
> Phone: +39 06-49914955
> Skype: a.billi
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Web site: http://www.andreabilli.com
> _________________________________________________
>
> Dalla Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana Art. 9: "La Repubblica
> promuove lo sviluppo della cultura e la ricerca scientifica e
> tecnica."
> Art. 33: "L'arte e la scienza sono libere e libero ne è l'insegnamento."
>
> "Non è grave il clamore chiassoso dei violenti, bensì il silenzio
> spaventoso delle persone oneste." Martin Luther King
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
_________________________________________________
Andrea Billi (PhD)
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, IGAG,
c.o. Dipartimento Scienze della Terra,
Sapienza Università di Roma,
P.le A. Moro 5, 00185, Rome, Italy.
Phone: +39 06-49914955
Skype: a.billi
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web site: http://www.andreabilli.com
_________________________________________________
Dalla Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana
Art. 9: "La Repubblica promuove lo sviluppo della cultura
e la ricerca scientifica e tecnica."
Art. 33: "L'arte e la scienza sono libere e libero ne è
l'insegnamento."
"Non è grave il clamore chiassoso dei violenti, bensì il silenzio
spaventoso delle persone oneste." Martin Luther King
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
|