seismologist convicted manslaughter

Okay, since none of you except Alex are apparently able to produce an properly informed opinion

• 6 Seismologists and 1 government official are charged with manslaughter
  
• They were tasked to evaluate the risk and damage if a major earthquake were to occur
  
• i.e. what buildings have the highest risk of collapse, what to do if an earthquake occurs
  
• They failed to properly inform the government and people of the risks and damages
  
• They did inform a meeting that the possibility of a large scale earthquake is not 0
  
• They did not inform the meeting of what to do in the case of a large scale earthquake
  
• They (the government official specifically) informed the public in a press conference there was no threat
  
• The government official said smaller tremors release energy reducing the possibility of a large scale earthquake, which is incorrect
  
• They were not asked to predict an earthquake
  
• The case was tried with a single judge
  
• Convictions are not definitive without one level of appeal in Italy
  

Yes, the sentence appears to be unfair, but the fact that there are so many of you arguing they're being charged because they couldn't predict an earthquake is as ignorant as the judge trying them.

>_> Irresponsibility is one part of it as mentioned in the quotations from Science but honestly, I can't really imagine that the lesson taken away would be "Let's be more responsible lest we get charged like those people next time" so much as "Give them what they want since we can't be charged for being public nuisances if we issue warnings". Which is my main point, I get that they are not asked to predict earthquakes and that they are being charged because they failed in their duty but negligence is still far more appropriate charge than manslaughter. The latter more or less encourages the idea that scientists ought to be too wary to save their skins next time because let's face it, if the government screwup is part of why the scientists are being tried in the first place there's absolutely no guarantee that another trial like this would end up in the scientists being burned at the stake even if they did their best because risk is still risk.

Also, I actually think trials like this tend to be a waste of time because the amount of time going over he said she said could be used to look into actually improving the buildings. Unless that happens along with new guidelines on the ethical responsibility of assessing potential dangers to the public from natural disasters, I can't say this is really going to do much.