[maxerickson]

If you are a terrible person with really weird requirements you might prefer the charges related to destruction of evidence to the charges related to the evidence itself.

(if you are a terrible person without really weird requirements you avoid capturing or destroy the evidence on an ongoing basis, not after you are caught)

[JackFr]

For instance, in New York at least, if you are suspected of DUI and refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test, it is an automatic civil suspension of of you drivers license for I believe two years. If you have prior convictions then and are looking at jail time and a license suspension, the smart play is to refuse to take the test.

[pc86]

I don't think being a "terrible person" (whatever the hell that means) has any bearing on whether or not you would want to protect your privacy.

[maxerickson]

Sure, but someone carrying around evidence of crimes with heavier punishments than destruction of evidence is considering a different scenario than someone simply concerned with their privacy.

[nicolas_t]

In the case of journalist covering war crimes, the journalist is not necessarily a "terrible" person. There's a lot of countries where the laws are such that it is not necessarily unethical not to respect them.

[maxerickson]

Again, sure, I was pointing out an instance where a person might prefer the destruction of evidence charges, not trying to exhaustively list all such situations.