zlacker

> 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.

>>krisof+(OP)
So if I lift a candy bar at a 7-11, am detained and questioned and the investigator notices chocolate smudges on my cheeks and uses that as reason to have my stomach pumped to produced destroyed evidence after I claimed I didn’t eat it, they can stick me in the slammer for 20 years for lying and destroying evidence?

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.

>>mc32+I2
And here is where the reporting of these number goes wrong. The youtuber in question won’t go to jail for 20 years. You as the chocolate thief won’t go to jail for 20 years.

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.