The evidence of which was destroyed?
Sure, no evidence, no crime, but in this case there was evidence that the feds knew about. If you destroy the evidence before the cops know it exists, fair game. But this wasn't it.
As usual, the coverup is worse than the crime. Especially for the guy getting railroaded.
Crime A is $2500 fine or 2 mos in the slammer, let’s say.
The evidence that would convict me is worth a grand. I destroy it.
The penalty for destroying this evidence should not exceed the original crime or value of the property I destroyed in any rational way.
The rational reason is that this is a behaviour we want to discourage. We want to diacourage it because it makes it more complicated and more costly to catch criminals, and more likely for them to get away with their crimes.
There is the idea of commensurate punishment. 20 years for destroying evidence for something that while serious didn’t defraud anyone, maim anyone or cause damage I think is unreasonable and unconstitutional.
20 year is the absolute maximum for the worst evidence tampering you can think of. A serial offender, after knowingly and willingly leveling a city block with people in there the second time to hide his street gang’s accounting fraud, and exhibiting open contempt towards the judge while loudly proclaiming he will do it again after they let him out. That person can not get more than 20 years for the specific crime of evidence tampering. That is what the 20 years statutory maximum is.
I don't think that the video alone gets past the reasonable doubt standard.