5 ms·
He deserves a much longer sentence for this. There is so much risk of killing someone or damaging property. Even in a remote area you cannot be sure there is no
by mattmaroon 3y ago
He deserves a much longer sentence for this. There is so much risk of killing someone or damaging property. Even in a remote area you cannot be sure there is nothing below or that you won’t start a forest fire.
I’ve seen less bad crimes get years.
- shpx 3y agoMillions of lives became a smidge more interesting because they got to see, think, talk and be outraged by this guy crashing a plane into a remote mountain range on purpose. As a society we can afford things like this if they're a one-off. It's slightly more fun if this happens once in 10 years than if it happens zero times. If 6 months is all he gets then that seems right to me, maybe even a bit much.
- Waterluvian 3y agoI’m not sure I agree that this is in some way culturally worth it. But I have to concede, this is basically how Damn Interesting episodes get made.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- autoexec 3y agoThere are things that shouldn't have been crimes at all ruin people's lives. I'm not saying this guy deserves to lose everything, but I agree that less than one year isn't justice considering all the harm he did and could have caused.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- foobar1962 3y agoThe prison sentence was for obstruction of justice the matter of crashing the plane hasn't been addressed yet.
- mattmaroon 3y agoIt’s not being addressed at all. I don’t believe he’s charged with anything and in fact, it might not even be illegal.
- bmitc 3y ago6-months does seem insanely light even if one only considers intentionally obstructing a federal investigation. Only 6 months for covering up and lying to investigators? I would have imagined that the sentence for that would be much longer. Is he additionally being tried for crashing the airplane on purpose?
- unaindz 3y agoThe instagram post suggest the judge went light with him on purpose. Personally I think it's fine. If he does something remotely similar they will not be as lenient.
- mattmaroon 3y agoGood point. Why wouldn’t you attempt to obstruct if it might save you from a long jail term and the downside is only six more months.
- InCityDreams 3y ago> I've seen less bad crimes get years. Exactly. Lotta people still in jail for marijuana for example.
- ipqk 3y agoLots of things that could harm or kill someone just get a small fine. For example, going 5 mph over the speed limit has likely killed many people over the decades, yet it's still only a $100 ticket or so.
- kuchenbecker 3y agoDo you have statistics on the marginal cost of 5mph? Id be interested to understand your certainty that e.g. 60mph is both more fatal and the number of deaths that could be prevented by going 55mph. I expect there are relatively few deaths that can be directly attributed to 5mph, but given evidence I'll reconsider.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoto be fair, they didnt claim it is likely, just that it could kill. You could make the same point about going 5mph under the speed limit. It is somewhat interesting to think about the factors that go into setting a punishment. It is rarely the magnitude of potential damage (worst case), and often not even the damage adjusted by the probability of occurrence. Most often, it has more to do with subjective custom and norms. Some dangerous things are OK, some are harshly punished.
- throwaway290 3y agoCertain companies dumping massive amounts of certain chemicals into water supply for many years are not even found guilty. 5mph over in a city or intentional plane crash in the wilderness and misleading investigators are small enough to be bad things, but do bad things at sufficient scale and those things are no longer bad.
- mattmaroon 3y agoLevel of risk has something to do with it too. Also the benefit. There’s small risk and tremendous benefit to letting everyone go 5 mph faster (time is money) but no benefit and relatively high risk to letting them turn Cessnas into missiles. The calculus on this one is easy