The punishment is for destroying evidence, not destroying a plane. And it's so heavy because otherwise it would make perfect sense to destroy evidence.
Still there must be a difference between destroying evidence for stealing a chewing gum vs a murder?
> And it's so heavy because otherwise it would make perfect sense to destroy evidence.
Thus no, this is no good argument for high punishment for any evidence destroyed?
Proportionality is a principle in many law systems.. not in the US? Wouldn't surprise me too much, but personally I find 20 years also much out of proportion, so not sure why parent poster gets downvoted so much.
(On the other hand, rereading, faces up to 20 years, and judges will likely put this still in proportion, right? So just sensationalist headline once again..)
Court usually takes circumstances into consideration, so yeah, there's proportionality encoded. It's not like everybody's given 20 years automatically.
Destroying evidence for what? A crashed plane that did nothing to no one? Don't be naive, this is a crime punishable by revocation a pilots license and a huge fine. That's it.
Boeing deliberately withheld information on what was causing people to get killed. Actual man slaughter.
>So you think it's okay that someone might just crash a fucking airplane on top of your head because of fucking likes?
What's the point of this question when you know I'm not ok with it. There is no point, so don't ask it when you know the answer.
>Crashing a fucking airplane without controlling a large potential crash side is tremendously dangerous.
Except he controlled the crash site successfully. So what's the point. I think there's gross negligence but "hypothetical unintentional manslaughter" is going to far.
