Memories of Kaprun: Why the Crans-Montana verdict may disappoint many

In Lutry near Lausanne (in canton Vaud), around a thousand people gathered for a silent march on January 3, 2026. On their banners, they demanded "justice", among other things. Keystone / Valentin Flauraud

Public expectations of harsh sentences following the deadly fire in Crans-Montana are high, fuelled in part by intense media attention. Yet legal experts warn that the eventual verdict is likely to disappoint many. The case evokes memories of the 2000 fire in the Austrian ski resort of Kaprun.

The shock caused by the tragedy in Crans-Montana remains profound. In its aftermath, calls for tough punishment have grown louder. Some voices have demanded charges of intentional homicide. On social media, emotions have run high: under a Facebook post by a parliamentarian from southern Switzerland, an Italian journalist wrote, “You are shameful – accomplices of murderers.”

The Kaprun disaster

In 2000, a fire broke out on a mountain railway in the Austrian ski resort of Kaprun, killing 155 people. The so-called chimney effect drew fire and toxic fumes upwards through the tunnel. As a result, only the 12 passengers who had travelled down the tunnel survived. The fire was caused by a household fan heater on the train, which was only approved for private use and should not have been installed in a funicular railway. Nevertheless, all those accused – including cable car employees, representatives of manufacturing companies, technicians, officials and technical inspectors – were acquitted in 2004.

Legally, however, the investigation does not centre on murder or intentional homicide, but on involuntary manslaughter, bodily harm and causing a conflagration. As devastating as the incident was, and regardless of any negligence on the part of individuals or authorities, it is classified as an accident under criminal law. There is no indication that the bar owners or officials intended to cause harm.

Relatively lenient penalties under Swiss law

“The Crans-Montana case could lead to sentences that will disappoint many people,” says Lukas Gschwend, professor of legal sociology at the University of St. Gallen. He does not rule out suspended or partially suspended sentences. In the end, some defendants may serve only short prison terms or none at all. “Many will say: how can this be possible, given the number of deaths?”

Swiss criminal law sets relatively low maximum penalties in international comparisons. Involuntary manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of three years’ imprisonment or a fine. In cases involving multiple victims, the sentence can be increased to up to four and a half years.

After the Kaprun disaster, which claimed 155 lives, public disappointment was intense when no one was ultimately convicted under criminal law. The fire was caused by a fan heater authorised only for private use. Parallels are now being drawn with Crans-Montana, where sparklers are alleged to have ignited acoustic insulation materials that had not previously been flagged by fire safety authorities.

The need for accountability – and its limits

According to Gschwend, such reactions are typical. “After a catastrophe, people look back and say: it should have been obvious that this heater or this highly flammable material could lead to a fatal fire.” There is a strong human need to identify a cause – and someone to blame.

Historically, punishment was seen as a state-sanctioned substitute for revenge. Over time, criminal justice systems shifted towards a more humanistic approach. Today, imprisonment is primarily intended to support reintegration into society.

What is an intentional homicide?

Anyone who recognises the death of a person as a possibility and accepts it – even if they are not directly aiming for it – commits “contingent intentional homicide”. Anyone who naively trusts that nothing bad will happen, on the other hand, is merely acting “negligently”. The Federal Court regularly affirms intentional homicide in the case of particularly blatant speeding accidents like in street racing. Its argument is that if the offender recognises that he is likely to run over a person and accepts this because he wants to win the race, then in the court’s opinion he is acting with intent. However, this case law has been criticised by legal scholars. Inferring intent from extremely risky behaviour is dogmatically flawed and, above all, motivated by legal policy – in order to be able to hand out harsher punishments.

That said, Gschwend acknowledges the psychological importance of retribution. “It helps maintain trust in the justice system and can give victims a sense of recognition that goes beyond financial compensation.”

In Switzerland, however, criminal law is based on individual guilt. “Without intent, you cannot impose extremely severe sentences – even if many people have died – simply to satisfy public expectations,” Gschwend explains.

He understands the widespread feeling that “something must happen”. But that “something” does not necessarily mean harsh prison sentences. “Learning from such tragedies is just as important,” he says – for example by banning unsuitable equipment, tightening safety standards and ensuring effective oversight to prevent similar disasters in the future.

Translated from German using AI/amva

How we translate with AI

We use automatic translation tools, such as DeepL and Google Translate, for some content.  

Each translated article is carefully reviewed by a journalist for accuracy. Using translation tools gives us the time for more in-depth articles. 

Learn more here about how we work with AI.