Three Years Later, Earthquake Shakes the Lives of Seven

Imagine you’re in class. Your professor poses a question. You ponder this question for a few seconds, and then slowly raise your hand to offer a response. Your professor calls on you and, upon hearing your answer, informs you that you are wrong. Oh well, you think. You gave your best answer at the time. You leave class and don’t think much about it. That is, until that evening when a knock on your door from the Campus Police informs you that you’re under arrest for being incorrect.

Okay, so that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but for seven Italians, this ludicrous example would hit home. On Monday, October 22, six scientists and one former government official were convicted of manslaughter. The catch? None of the victims was killed at the hands of the convicted, but at the hands of a particularly destructive earthquake. In 2009, this storm hit L’Aquila, Italy, killing more than 300 in its wake. Beforehand, a team of scientists concluded that a severe earthquake was unlikely to hit, and decided to quell the public’s fears instead of entering into a state of emergency.

The court that convicted these individuals ignored the fact that seismology, by its very definition, is an imperfect science: it’s impossible to predict the time and strength of an earthquake with complete accuracy or assurance. So, these professionals are naturally spending their next six years in prison doing time for the flaws of their chosen field.

The prosecution in this case sounds similar to a doctor’s malpractice trial. Of course, if the doctor did not perform to the best of his ability, he should be held responsible. But even then, the likelihood of him serving jail time is slim. If a patient dies of cancer, you can ask all the questions: why didn’t the doctor catch the disease earlier? Why couldn’t he stop it? At the end of the day, however, the reality remains: the patient is gone, as terrible as that is, and no finger pointing will bring them back.

I think that this need for blame is what’s really behind the verdict. People died and this fact is hard to accept. People need to find someone responsible to get closure and “justice.” This attitude of the L’Aquila disaster is reminiscent of the largely anti-Muslim attitude of post-9/11 America. This prejudice was unproductive then, and this verdict will ultimately see the same outcome.

The unfairness of this verdict stretches back farther than the eleven years since 9/11; it sends a message that this “justice” is merely a synonym for payback. When I first read up on this court case, I was immediately reminded of my ninth grade Global Studies class. One day we learned about Hammurabi’s Code and, if memory serves, it was the first set of written laws and the source of “an eye for an eye.” I may not have the most extensive knowledge of modern law, but I like to think we’ve moved a little beyond antiquated ideas from years ending in “BC.”

Additionally, there is some evidence to suggest that if fingers must be pointed, they should be pointed in a different direction. The fact that the deaths were caused by the collapse of buildings points to an issue that is, above all else, infrastructural. Perhaps if the city had addressed problems with building maintenance, the lives wouldn’t have been lost in the first place. As Elisabetta Povoledo reported for the New York Times in 2009, shortly after the earthquake, the Italian government pledged to look into the failure to keep buildings up to code. This made sense – finding the source of the problem, and correcting it to avoid future trouble. But somehow, within the three years between the earthquake and the court case, this pledge was forgotten.

These twisted ideas about justice have ruined the careers of seven individuals and have essentially put their lives on pause for the next six years.  Moreover, these ideas threaten the open expression of ideas and opinions that allow society to function. If I were a scientist in Italy, I would certainly be thinking twice about sharing any ideas. What if my idea turns out to be wrong, and the judicial system comes after me? Or, perhaps more dangerously, what if my idea could spur others to build upon it, but I keep it to myself out of fear? This fear may be starting in Italy, but if this standard is upheld, it’s only a matter of time before progress is halted elsewhere as well.

I think that if we are to take away anything from this case, it is that society needs to shift its definition of justice from one that seeks a scapegoat to one that creates institutionalized change, ensuring that tragedies don’t repeat themselves. •