4 ms·
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.
by brokenkebaby 3y ago
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.
- byyyy 3y agoDestroying 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.
- brokenkebaby 3y agoDestroying evidence. Not for something. Just destroying evidence is a crime in itself. Ask your lawyer maybe.
- byyyy 3y ago[flagged]
- throwbadubadu 3y agoStill 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..)
- brokenkebaby 3y agoCourt usually takes circumstances into consideration, so yeah, there's proportionality encoded. It's not like everybody's given 20 years automatically.
- byyyy 3y ago[flagged]