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..)

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.