Italian Cruise Ship Disaster
- Thread starter afbarnes
- 39 comments
- 3,727 views
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
The captain has been sentenced to 16 years in prison. However he will not be incarcerated until the appeal process is over which could take years.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/11/italy-ship-idUSL5N0VL2TL20150211
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/11/italy-ship-idUSL5N0VL2TL20150211
- 2,745
- Italy
- Yellohead
- Clydeyellow
This whole farce of a process is bringing our courts even closer to being gram panchayats. "Of course it's all Schettino's fault! The TV said that! Let's not investigate the responsibilities of Costa Crociere, which may have ordered the deviation from the planned route, and delayed the evacuation of the ship in hope to quietly repair the damage, at all".
You have no idea how much of a political event this whole process has become. In the mind of my fellow countrymen, Schettino is all that's bad in Italy, Coast Guard captain De Falco (another bubbling idiot, however one who can shout loud enough for the Italian public taste) is what's good with our country, and the Costa Concordia represents us sinking in our numerous problems and scandals only to float back to the surface (nevermind that it's only thanks to a Dutch company). And it's not something you have to put any effort into understanding; all you have to do is turn on the TV to hear these exact words (minus my considerations, of course).
- 31,702
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
Did they ever further investigate the sinking? Or did they just blamed Schettino and called it a day?
- 23,800
- Philippines
At the end of the day, the Captain, not the company, has the final say over whether or not the ship goes on, stops or evacuates.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-16563562
The Captain was on record as ordering the change of course. Whether or not higher-ups asked him to do so, it was his call. Later on, he was the one who admitted to committing a navigational error.
The Captain and crew were on record denying to the Coastguard that they had a problem beyond a loss of electrical power... after they hit the rocks.
Then, on record, they took over half-an-hour to inform the passengers that the ship was taking on water and evacuation was necessary. All while denying that they had any problem besides "a blackout"
The Captain abandoned ship. Refused to return, despite orders from the Coast Guard, even though the evacuation of the passengers was not complete. Then his second also abandoned, leaving the service crew (not officers) to help the passengers during the latter half of the evacuation.
-
Whatever the other circumstances, that's what's on record. That's what condemned the captain. That's gross dereliction of duty, any way you put it, and abandoning civilians under your care, IMHO, should be worth five years all by itself. That he got just one year for that probably had something to do with the other fifteen years in his sentence...
If he had stayed with the ship, personally supervising the evacuation, as was his duty, his sentence would not be so severe. I'd say merely a suspension for causing the accident. The manslaughter charges arise directly from his dereliction of duty.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-16563562
The Captain was on record as ordering the change of course. Whether or not higher-ups asked him to do so, it was his call. Later on, he was the one who admitted to committing a navigational error.
The Captain and crew were on record denying to the Coastguard that they had a problem beyond a loss of electrical power... after they hit the rocks.
Then, on record, they took over half-an-hour to inform the passengers that the ship was taking on water and evacuation was necessary. All while denying that they had any problem besides "a blackout"
The Captain abandoned ship. Refused to return, despite orders from the Coast Guard, even though the evacuation of the passengers was not complete. Then his second also abandoned, leaving the service crew (not officers) to help the passengers during the latter half of the evacuation.
-
Whatever the other circumstances, that's what's on record. That's what condemned the captain. That's gross dereliction of duty, any way you put it, and abandoning civilians under your care, IMHO, should be worth five years all by itself. That he got just one year for that probably had something to do with the other fifteen years in his sentence...
If he had stayed with the ship, personally supervising the evacuation, as was his duty, his sentence would not be so severe. I'd say merely a suspension for causing the accident. The manslaughter charges arise directly from his dereliction of duty.
- 2,745
- Italy
- Yellohead
- Clydeyellow
I am in no way saying that Schettino is blameless, or that he doesn't deserve the sentence he received; far from it, he was an idiot who ****ed up on a royal scale and deserves each day of his sentence, and then some. Neither I am saying that Costa Crociere is guilty of ordering a maneuver that put the ship and her passengers in danger. However, there was no effort to understand if the company was also at fault; there was evidence that the order to come closer to the Isola del Giglio's coastline was given by the higher-ups of Costa, but this lead was never followed by the investigators.
However, the public opinion asked for Schettino's blood, they didn't care much about what Costa did, and the prosecutors didn't bother investigating the company's claims that Schettino's maneuver was "unapproved and unauthorized" (despite the fact that those inchini were part of the usual fare on their cruise ships); the whole investigation smacks of farce.
Again, that doesn't change the fact that Schettino was in charge of the ship and he, alone, is to blame for the loss of life aboard the Concordia. After all, the captain of a ship is ultimately the master under God of his ship. But if Costa ordered Schettino to perform a dangerous maneuver, or to delay the evacuation of the ship until it tilted at a dangerous angle, then they too are responsible, if not by maritime law, then by criminal and civil law.
You said this process gives more credibility to Italian courts; I simply disagreed on this point.
- 23,800
- Philippines
First off: Asking a captain to sail closer to shore, in and of itself, is not dangerous.
The captain has, at his disposal, navigational charts showing all the obstacles and dangers in the area, electronic navigational aids, and spotters. It would have been quite possible to chart a course through the area without grounding the ship... if he weren't going too fast and had taken the time to chart his course deviation (and to consult the proper chart, in the first place) properly before he hit.
And finally, there is no evidence that anyone besides the captain ordered the maneuver (in fact, he admitted to giving the order, and declared his reasons for doing so during the trial), and there's a mountain of evidence of him lying his ass off to the Coast Guard, to the cruise line's response center and to the passengers both during and after the grounding.
Yes, there are possible operational lapses by the Cruise line in terms of training and whatnot, but that's about it. As long as the company follows the SOLAS (safety of life at sea) requirements and guidelines in general, they can't be held accountable for the captain of the ship not following their own rules.
Even if there was, the court would have a hard time prosecuting anyone higher up than the Captain, not unless the ship was not seaworthy, was grossly overloaded/overbooked or the route itself was unnaturally dangerous.
The captain has, at his disposal, navigational charts showing all the obstacles and dangers in the area, electronic navigational aids, and spotters. It would have been quite possible to chart a course through the area without grounding the ship... if he weren't going too fast and had taken the time to chart his course deviation (and to consult the proper chart, in the first place) properly before he hit.
And finally, there is no evidence that anyone besides the captain ordered the maneuver (in fact, he admitted to giving the order, and declared his reasons for doing so during the trial), and there's a mountain of evidence of him lying his ass off to the Coast Guard, to the cruise line's response center and to the passengers both during and after the grounding.
Yes, there are possible operational lapses by the Cruise line in terms of training and whatnot, but that's about it. As long as the company follows the SOLAS (safety of life at sea) requirements and guidelines in general, they can't be held accountable for the captain of the ship not following their own rules.
Even if there was, the court would have a hard time prosecuting anyone higher up than the Captain, not unless the ship was not seaworthy, was grossly overloaded/overbooked or the route itself was unnaturally dangerous.
