SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A man who was found not guilty of armed robbery will still serve up to seven years behind bars after a judge ruled he had breached the rules of his probation sentence for another crime.
Ramad Chatman handed himself in to police when he found out he was a suspect for an armed robbery at a convenience store in his hometown of Georgia in July 2014.
The 24-year-old was already was serving a five year probation term (a court order served outside prison through fines and community service) for his first ever offence, breaking and entering an apartment to steal a television worth $120 in 2012.
The following February, a judge decided it was likely he did commit the robbery and as a result Chatman was re-sentenced for the original crime of stealing a TV and ordered to serve 10-years behind bars, back dated to the day of the crime.
Court documents nonetheless showed he did everything asked of him during his probation, including checking in, paying restitution and finishing his community service. He was also holding down a job.
But when the armed robbery trial came to court in August, he was found not guilty.
It later emerged that ahead of the trial Chapman[sic] tried to enter an Alford plea on the charge of aggravated assault in exchange for the armed robbery charges being dropped.
An Alford plea means the defendant enters a guilty plea, but maintains his innocence. It is often used when a defendant feels like despite his innocence, he will lose at trial.
The judge refused to accept the deal, so the case was heard before a jury - who ruled he was innocent of the crime.
Presiding Judge John Niedrach, disagreed with their verdict however.
So despite the fact police never recovered the weapon, stolen money, or any other evidence connecting him to the robbery, he declined to release Mr Chatman, who remains in prison for violating the terms of his first probation order.
Original Submission[Edit: [sic]'ed the Independent's typo - FP]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @03:44PM (4 children)
Your statistical argument might have more weight than a pingpong ball were it not for the demonstrable disproportion of blacks committing vastly more crime compared to the general population.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @05:47PM (1 child)
Where is your proof that blacks commit more crime? What we have proof of is that blacks get arrested more often, charged more often, and convicted more often. As this case demonstrates, that's not necessarily proof of committing crimes. Supposing we knew for certain, for all crimes, who committed which crimes we could make your claim, but we don't so you can't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @07:14PM
Nice try, Skippy. Picking the statistics that suit you and dismissing anything contrary neither validates your argument nor invalidates mine.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by compro01 on Thursday May 25 2017, @09:09PM (1 child)
And how do you know that? Because the "justice" system convicts them more often? And you don't see anything circular about that reasoning?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 26 2017, @04:30AM
Not the original AC, but just as a point of logic, the reverse reasoning, that we know the justice system is biased because there are more minorities convicted of crimes is also circular reason. Neither of the assumed causations, minorities commit more crimes or the justice system is unfair to minorities, can really be proved by the that statistic.