zlacker

>>tafda+(OP)
20 years is outrageous and very unlikely given his probable experience and making sure no one would be hurt. There is a vast difference in crashing an airplane over a populated area, intentionally wanting to cause harm, and it being accident. Afaik this area is not even populated.

If such a thing happened by accident, you should not get 20 years. If you did so intentionally wanting to cause harm, them perhaps you should get 20+ years, because that would be an act of terrorism. If someone got killed, you should probably not get your freedom back.

Journalists need to always mind the context and emphasize the likelihood of what will be the outcome. It is not really truthful to bluntly state he faces 20 years. If he were to actually get 20, the legal system would obviously be severely flawed. There are murderers that get 20 ffs.

>>FreeCo+871
I think you may need to familiarise yourself with US federal sentencing guidelines. Unlike being found guilty of breaking state laws, where many state judges will be endowed with discretionary authority to impose a sentence within a wide range and reflecting the facts found/pleaded, my man is pleading to a federal crime involving defrauding the US government and federal judges are largely beholden to a matrix of crime/sentence with a teeny bit of wiggle room for facts and circumstances.