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.
I find the context very clear. The writer did a superb job.
Edit: Also the post says up to 20 years .. not sure why you've become fixated on it being simply 20. People dropping planes out of the sky for likes need to be made an example of imo, and I personally would be happy to see him locked up for life as a deterrent to others. The lengths people are going to for likes is frightening.
That would be mass murder, and would carry a much harsher penalty than 20 years! In the US, probably life times the number of victims.
> and it being accident
It wasn't an accident. He intentionally crashed his plane. That's the crime he's accused of.
Intentionally ditching a plane in region known for catastrophic forest fires is close to ecologic terrorism.
The biggest problem with deterrence is it relies on people not thinking they won't get caught. Everyone thinks they won't get caught.
No, it was a stupid stunt for profit (he made a significant amount of money from his video), a dangerous one. Flying is highly regulated for obvious reasons, he should have done his research before thinking it was a good idea to do that just to get views.
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism#:~:text=Internatio....
International terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).
Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.
You can't just call anything terrorism from a legal standpoint, though many try.
I’d really suggest you read the article, which offers a clear explanation of the facts and crimes he committed. Not sure which journalists you’re ranting about?
Unfortunately not everyone agrees with the FBI's definition of terrorism. The FBI's definition of International terrorism depends on a list of organizations more-or-less arbitrarily assembled by politicians. Their definition of domestic terrorism is even looser.
Basically, both definitions are "violent criminal acts [waffle]". That definition is circular, because terrorism is criminal.
The word should be banned from newspapers and from political and legal discourse. Broadly speaking, it means "political activities of which we disapprove".