Rhys Jones killer found guilty

[snez1]

[YOUTUBE]aldQWgaxHOM[/YOUTUBE]

 

Tell you what though, how much dignity have Rhys's parents shown through all this?

 

I've just read some stuff about Mercer (and his mates) sniggering and yawning through the trial, yet Stephen & Melanie Jones have shown immense dignity. People like them make me proud to be a Scouser, this in the face of the shameful behaviour shown by Mercer, his mates and his utter retard of a girlfriend.

 

Gee Walker and the Jones epitomise what is great about people of this city.

 

Bang on.

 

That video reduces me to tears everytime, so moving.

[RoboRiise]

Stupid cunts.

 

 

Sean Mercer's girlfriend stands by the convicted child killer, describing him as a hero and blaming the police for the death of 11-year-old Rhys Jones.

 

Kelly Marshall insists that Sean Mercer is innocent

 

 

Kelly Marshall, 17, got back together with Mercer after he shot the schoolboy in August 2007.

 

Student Kelly said they had split up shortly before the tragedy but they got back together at the beginning of this year to continue their three-year relationship.

 

She refuses to call the death of Rhys Jones a murder.

 

"It was an accident. Everyone in Croxteth is sorry about it but it wasn't meant to happen," says Kelly.

 

"Sean is a lovely lad. He wouldn't harm anyone. It wasn't him.

 

"He is a hero. He's a hero around here. All the lads love him around here. Because he knows it's not him but he hasn't grassed anyone up. He's just taken it. He's just getting the blame because his name was put about."

 

Kelly, who was with a member of the Croxteth Crew when she spoke, said: "It was the bizzies' (Merseyside Police) fault. They saw it coming. The shootings had been building up for years. But they didn't do anything to stop it. They just let it carry on and then Rhys Jones was killed.

 

"My head is wrecked. My fella's in court every day and they're saying he did this and that. And it wasn't him."

 

Kelly revealed how she still feels loyalty to the Croxteth Crew and feels angry that many of them have been jailed for the murder of Liam 'Smigger' Smith, or are on remand for the death of Rhys Jones.

 

She said: "Most of the lads from Croxteth are in jail. There's no one left.

 

"Norris Green think they're hard now. They can come down here and do what they want, battering everyone. And there's no one here to stop them. It's bad."

 

Rhys Jones Murder: Sean Mercer's Girlfriend Kelly Marshall Says He Is A Hero | UK News | Sky News

 

 

If brains were shits, she'd never need to wipe her arse. I know she's only seventeen but she sounds like she's got the intellectual capacity of a ten year old.

 

Someone needs to explain to her that far from being a hero, her "fella" (you're not Amy Winehouse love...) is a gutless, murdering little ponce who having killed a child, didn't even have the sack to face up to what he'd done. That's not a hero, it's a spineless excuse for a human being. Oh and the reason all his mates are in prison is because they're exactly the same as him; worthless oxygen thieves.

 

A kid died, but she's worried because "Norris Green think they're hard now." What a waste of skin she is.

 

My heart goes out to Rhys' parents, especially at this time of year. I just hope that in time they can come to terms with these events in some way and move forward.

[Strontium]

22 years isnt enough in my opinion

 

 

I think it's about right. It's a damn long time you know. That kid is gonna be missing out on the best years of his life, he won't get out til he's 40.

[George Costanza]

Just hang the fucker and save the tax payer some money

 

Really though words fail me at that bint. They really do. To think she might one day be responsible in bringing a child into the world frightens me.

[tokyojoe]

I think it's about right. It's a damn long time you know. That kid is gonna be missing out on the best years of his life, he won't get out til he's 40.

 

I'm crying my eyes out. Poor cunt. At the age of 40 he'll be even more bitter and dangerous. Still, his slut will be waiting for him having been faithfull for 20 odd years.

 

Rhys's parents, well I saw them on the news and how they were so calm and restrained is beyond me, I know I wouldn't be able to be be like that if I were in their position.

[tokyojoe]

Just hang the fucker and save the tax payer some money

 

Really though words fail me at that bint. They really do. To think she might one day be responsible in bringing a child into the world frightens me.

 

Probably already is, or shortly will be. You and I will be paying for it though.

[Section_31]

I think this lad will be in for a tough time in prison too, not just because of what he's done to a kid, but also because his kind are the type to run away at the mouth - despite having the physical presence of a ferret.

[George Costanza]

Probably already is, or shortly will be. You and I will be paying for it though.

 

Do not get me started on child benefit.

 

Your absolutely right though

[torahboy]

How will this Mercer thing be treated in prison? He is, after all, a child murderer and I would expect that his first few years within a 'general population' will be quite testing, merely because of the type of conviction he has. Other child murderers have opted to be put on section 43(?) and they have been 'cast down with the Sodomites' and paedophiles for their own protection. His life is going be one long battle against battery and bummery. I expect to be reading how he's topped himself within a few months. Then his chick can go to his funeral and bring a wreath that spells 'MY 'ERO'. Nice.

[kelster]

I think it's about right. It's a damn long time you know. That kid is gonna be missing out on the best years of his life, he won't get out til he's 40.

 

Don't say that you cunt. I'm only 4 years off 40. Life begins then apparently.

[Paul]

It's great to see justice has been served, even though it won't bring Rhys back. What I'd now like to know is what is being done about the gang problem at the heart of this?

[Ian Sea]

I think this lad will be in for a tough time in prison too, not just because of what he's done to a kid, but also because his kind are the type to run away at the mouth - despite having the physical presence of a ferret.

 

I hope so mate.

[Strontium]

What I'd now like to know is what is being done about the gang problem at the heart of this?

 

 

Well, Liverpool's GCSE results have improved from rock bottom in the whole country 10 years ago to being above the national average this year.

 

I mention this because education is the absolute key to overcoming this problem, and the associated problems of poverty and deprivation. Liverpool's students have been badly let down by the education system for decades.

 

Incidentally, you'll no doubt be pleased to know that the unsung hero responsible for this turnaround in Liverpool's educational performance now sits on Merseyside Police Authority ;)

[WaltonRed]

I think it's about right. It's a damn long time you know. That kid is gonna be missing out on the best years of his life, he won't get out til he's 40.

 

yeah and he'll come out with GCSE's, A-levels and maybe even a Hyndley esque degree.

 

you kill someone you should never come out.

 

Life should mean life.

[Malarkey]

I think this lad will be in for a tough time in prison too, not just because of what he's done to a kid, but also because his kind are the type to run away at the mouth - despite having the physical presence of a ferret.

 

I think so too. He killed a kid and he looks like a cocky, arrogant piece of shit. He'll probably wear prison like a badge of honour and when he get's out he will think he is a martyr. Tosser.

[Strontium]

yeah and he'll come out with GCSE's, A-levels and maybe even a Hyndley esque degree.

 

you kill someone you should never come out.

 

Life should mean life.

 

Well, needless to say, I don't agree with you. I think life should only mean life in those cases where there's a risk of recidivism.

 

If you want to lock people up forever, you're saying there's no chance of them being rehabilitated and becoming productive members of society. What a depressing attitude.

 

I'm going to sound all namby-pamby liberal here, so sorry for that, but a crime like this doesn't just reflect badly on those who commit it, it also raises questions about how we socialise our youth, especially our young men.

 

For them to turn out like this, society is obviously failing these young people in some way. It never ceases to infuriate me that the morally outraged don't seem as bothered by what causes people to behave like this as they are bothered by the behaviour itself. Causes of crime should be as important to us as punishing the crime itself.

[WaltonRed]

Well, needless to say, I don't agree with you. I think life should only mean life in those cases where there's a risk of recidivism.

 

If you want to lock people up forever, you're saying there's no chance of them being rehabilitated and becoming productive members of society. What a depressing attitude.

 

I'm going to sound all namby-pamby liberal here, so sorry for that, but a crime like this doesn't just reflect badly on those who commit it, it also raises questions about how we socialise our youth, especially our young men.

 

For them to turn out like this, society is obviously failing these young people in some way. It never ceases to infuriate me that the morally outraged don't seem as bothered by what causes people to behave like this as they are bothered by the behaviour itself. Causes of crime should be as important to us as punishing the crime itself.

 

I'm not denying that society must take a long hard look at itself SD but I honestly feel they can both go hand in hand.

 

its the iron fist in a velvet glove theory.

 

If you murder someone I dont think you deserve to be rehabilitated in all honesty.

[Neil G]

Well, needless to say, I don't agree with you. I think life should only mean life in those cases where there's a risk of recidivism.

 

If you want to lock people up forever, you're saying there's no chance of them being rehabilitated and becoming productive members of society. What a depressing attitude.

 

 

Where do the victims and their families figure in this equation? Why must the focus of this debate be exclusively about how society should deal with the perpetrators and not about what it owes to the victims?

 

Giving mandatory life sentences for murderers wouldn't be saying they can't be rehabilitated. It would be society recognising the extent of the loss and suffering endured by the loved ones of their victims, which is an essential part of justice. Murder victims don't get a second shot at making a life for themselves. For the justice system to focus so much on granting that second shot to their killers creates a real sense of imbalance between the consideration shown to the killers and that shown to the victims, and thereby downplays the extent of the victims' families' suffering.

 

Most victims of violent crime and those close to them aren't driven by revenge. They don't spend the majority of their time and energy during the recovery process wishing suffering on the person who hurt them. They spend it first and foremost on themselves and trying to rebuild their lives, and an essential requirement in that process is knowing that society acknowledges how much you've suffered and lost as a victim. I've been a victim of violent crime myself, a serious unprovoked assault in which I almost lost an eye. Believe me, to feel that society at large doesn't acknowledge or care about the magnitude of your ordeal is to be kicked and punched all over again, every single day.

 

I believe that murder without any extenuating circumstances should carry an automatic sentence of life without parole. I support that principle just as unconditionally as I oppose the death penalty. In principle however I think the victim's family should be given the choice of having the sentence reduced, and in many cases I have no doubt that families would do this if they had the chance to meet with the murderers and see that they were genuinely reformed and remorseful. I don't know how workable that would be in practice, but it should certainly be looked at.

 

As for the perpetrators and what they do with their lives if they're incarcerated for the rest of them, it's possible to lead a productive and worthwhile life in prison with the right support and resources, and they should be given that chance. They can get an education, work to earn money, write and publish, take part in educational programmes for people inside and outside prison, mentor other prisoners who aren't in for life and need rehabilitating – all sorts of opportunities and activities that will enrich their lives and give them a stake in society even if they never leave prison again.

 

Don't confuse the desire of the baying mob for retribution with the desire of victims for a sense of justice and recognition. I can tell you from my own experience that they're two very different things.

[Strontium]

Where do the victims and their families figure in this equation? Why must the focus of this debate be exclusively about how society should deal with the perpetrators and not about what it owes to the victims?

 

 

The guy is in prison for 22 years. The family of Rhys Jones seem happy with the justice that was served.

 

Without wishing to sound harsh, this is a secondary concern though. It's the act of the crime that is being judged, not the pain it causes. I felt pretty upset when I split with my fiancee four years ago, but we didn't jail her for causing me months of pain and anguish. The judge feels that 22 years is a sufficiently long time for someone to reflect on their error, and I would agree.

 

 

Giving mandatory life sentences for murderers wouldn't be saying they can't be rehabilitated. It would be society recognising the extent of the loss and suffering endured by the loved ones of their victims, which is an essential part of justice.

 

 

I think mandatory sentences for anything is a nonsense quite frankly. I'd like to leave tariffs up to the discretion of the judiciary, because it's their job and I trust them to pass a more appropriate sentence than a politician.

 

Still, I am interested in hearing your justification for keeping a 92 year old Sean Mercer in prison, at a cost of £30,000 a year to the taxpayer, for a crime he committed 76 years earlier.

 

 

Murder victims don't get a second shot at making a life for themselves. For the justice system to focus so much on granting that second shot to their killers creates a real sense of imbalance between the consideration shown to the killers and that shown to the victims

 

 

Prison isn't a picnic you know. Why do you think so many murderers attempt suicide? In many ways, 20 years in prison is something worse than death.

 

 

I've been a victim of violent crime myself, a serious unprovoked assault in which I almost lost an eye. Believe me, to feel that society at large doesn't acknowledge or care about the magnitude of your ordeal is to be kicked and punched all over again, every single day.

 

 

Well I hope they got the guys that did it and that they got a long sentence. Society isn't really here to exact revenge on your behalf though.

 

(How much compo did you get, by the way? Tell me to sod off if you don't want to say. Just curious as a friend of mine who was also brutally assaulted in an unprovoked attack is wondering how much he will be looking at)

[WaltonRed]

Still, I am interested in hearing your justification for keeping a 92 year old Sean Mercer in prison, at a cost of £30,000 a year to the taxpayer, for a crime he committed 76 years earlier.

 

Prison isn't a picnic you know. Why do you think so many murderers attempt suicide? In many ways, 20 years in prison is something worse than death

 

He took a life though, Rhys will never get to do anything ever again. The punishment should fit the crime.

 

Mercer should die in prison as an murderer should do.

 

A precedent needs to be shown to the kids of Norris Green and Croxteth and thats if you fuck about with guns and kill someone you'll never come out, some of them will think on then.

 

As for the 2nd part you have to be joking SD?! Prison worse then death?!

[Neil G]

The guy is in prison for 22 years. The family of Rhys Jones seem happy with the justice that was served.

 

 

In this instance yes. And so under the system that I'd like to see put in place, they would have the option of having Mercer released after he'd served 22 years if they felt that was enough.

 

 

Without wishing to sound harsh, this is a secondary concern though. It's the act of the crime that is being judged, not the pain it causes. I felt pretty upset when I split with my fiancee four years ago, but we didn't jail her for causing me months of pain and anguish. The judge feels that 22 years is a sufficiently long time for someone to reflect on their error, and I would agree.

 

 

This is my whole point: it shouldn't be a secondary concern. There are four main stakeholders in the criminal sentencing process: the general public, the state, the perpetrator and the victim. The wishes and interests of the first three are taken into account in the process, while those of the victim are completely sidelined.

 

 

I think mandatory sentences for anything is a nonsense quite frankly. I'd like to leave tariffs up to the discretion of the judiciary, because it's their job and I trust them to pass a more appropriate sentence than a politician.

 

Still, I am interested in hearing your justification for keeping a 92 year old Sean Mercer in prison, at a cost of £30,000 a year to the taxpayer, for a crime he committed 76 years earlier.

 

 

There it is again: giving every party bar the victim a stake in the sentencing process.

 

If the Jones family wanted Mercer to stay in prison for the rest of his life, then the justification would be that an innocent family who suffered the most grievous loss imaginable to a human being had felt that justice had been served, and that they had received sufficient formal recognition for the extent of their loss.

 

But, as I said, I believe that many if not most families of murder victims would be prepared to forgive the killers and accept a reduced sentence if they showed remorse. It would in my view vastly improve the prospects for rehabilitation if convicted murderers knew that proving their remorse to the victim's family was a requirement for earning their freedom.

 

 

Prison isn't a picnic you know. Why do you think so many murderers attempt suicide? In many ways, 20 years in prison is something worse than death.

 

 

I'll just have to disagree with you there. There's a rather essential difference in that it's possible to recover from 20 years in prison and rebuild your life, whereas to the best of my knowledge no murder victim has ever recovered from being dead and rebuilt their life. Most murder victims, as their life drains out of them, would swap their situation for 20 years behind bars without a moment's hesitation.

 

 

Well I hope they got the guys that did it and that they got a long sentence. Society isn't really here to exact revenge on your behalf though.

 

 

If you'd properly read and understood my post, you'd know that I'm not talking about victims wanting revenge.

 

If you put the same amount of effort into empathising with victims of crime and understanding their situation as you do with criminals, you'd understand the difference between revenge and justice from the victim's point of view. I'm not criticising you for trying to understand criminals, I fully share that approach. I just think that victims are entitled to the same level of understanding, and the fact that they don't get it adds to their suffering. They're entitled to more balance from the justice system and from you.

 

One of my attackers was convicted, and I was happy with the sentence although it wasn't particularly long given the severity of my injuries, trauma and debilitation. He got six months plus six suspended, of which I believe he served four. As it happened I tried to intervene on his behalf to plead for clemency, as I met him after the verdict and found him to be genuinely repentant. He'd been the victim of an unprovoked attack himself a while before and his injuries were even more serious than the ones I suffered, and I could fully understand why he'd done what he did to me even though it was inexcusable. When he was sentenced the judge stated to the court that I had made an appeal on his behalf but that the court couldn't take it into consideration, which reinforces my point about the victim being sidelined.

 

 

(How much compo did you get, by the way? Tell me to sod off if you don't want to say. Just curious as a friend of mine who was also brutally assaulted in an unprovoked attack is wondering how much he will be looking at)

 

 

No bother. I got £8,200 which I was pretty happy with.

 

This was nearly ten years ago so I don't know if the system still works the same way, but back then the amount paid was dictated by the severity of the injuries sustained. Each injury has a tariff attached, and you get compensated for the most serious three. The fucked up thing is that you only get the full amount for the most serious injury. For the second you get 10 per cent of the full amount, and for the third 5 per cent. The logic is that part of the tariff for any injury is for the trauma suffered from the assault and so you shouldn't get paid for that three times over, but the upshot is that, for example, a broken arm becomes ten times less worthy of compensation if it comes together with a broken leg than if it was the only injury. My most serious injury was a detached retina which was what almost cost me my sight, for which I got £7,500. My other injuries which qualified (one was a fractured eye socket, I forget what the other one was) were worth £5k and £4k in their own right, but I only got another £700 for the two of them because of the gradation system.

 

I don't know if your mate has looked at the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority at all, their home page is here and the regulations for eligibility and payments are here if he wants to wade through a 55-page PDF. I didn't find the CICA particularly helpful in my case, although they may have upped their game since then. He'll probably get more joy talking to his local branch of Victim Support first.

[Mr.SB]

.

[Strontium]

If the Jones family wanted Mercer to stay in prison for the rest of his life, then the justification would be that an innocent family who suffered the most grievous loss imaginable to a human being had felt that justice had been served, and that they had received sufficient formal recognition for the extent of their loss.

 

 

But it's not (and shouldn't be) the decision of the family of the victim over when a transgressor is permitted to return to civilised society - it's society's decision. Just because you happen to share more genetic material than most with the victim does not give you a divine right to say when society should accept an offender back. Society has the biggest say here because crimes and criminals affect all of us, not just a select few relatives of the victim. We all of us have to live with these people, after all.

 

 

But, as I said, I believe that many if not most families of murder victims would be prepared to forgive the killers and accept a reduced sentence if they showed remorse. It would in my view vastly improve the prospects for rehabilitation if convicted murderers knew that proving their remorse to the victim's family was a requirement for earning their freedom.

 

 

Remorse is already a condition of release from life sentences, is it not? Society has parole boards to make the decision over when a prisoner on a life sentence should be released on licence.

 

The big advantage parole boards have is that they are impartial and not swayed by emotion. It gives you a consistency and a fairness of decision making.

 

Honestly, if you left it up to the victim's families to decide the length of a sentence, it's a recipe for trouble. Some families would forgive pretty easily, some never would, so you would get people who had committed the same crime serving wildly different sentences.

 

How would it be fair that someone served 10 years and someone else 70 years for the same crime?

[Neil G]

But it's not (and shouldn't be) the decision of the family of the victim over when a transgressor is permitted to return to civilised society - it's society's decision. Just because you happen to share more genetic material than most with the victim does not give you a divine right to say when society should accept an offender back. Society has the biggest say here because crimes and criminals affect all of us, not just a select few relatives of the victim. We all of us have to live with these people, after all.

 

 

Crimes and criminals in general affect all of us, but the specific crime in any given case affects the victim and their loved ones far more than anyone else in society. To brush aside the needs and feelings of the victim's family by saying that they are no more affected by the murder than anyone else is as hurtful an example of adding insult to injury as I can think of.

 

You are prepared to step into the shoes of criminals and see them as individual people with specific needs and specific rights in relation to society and the state, and yet you won't do the same with victims who are every bit as entitled to that dignity as criminals are. You won't grant them a greater stake in the sentencing process than any other member of the public. That's the core of my problem with the way the criminal justice system works.

 

 

Remorse is already a condition of release from life sentences, is it not? Society has parole boards to make the decision over when a prisoner on a life sentence should be released on licence.

 

The big advantage parole boards have is that they are impartial and not swayed by emotion. It gives you a consistency and a fairness of decision making.

 

Honestly, if you left it up to the victim's families to decide the length of a sentence, it's a recipe for trouble. Some families would forgive pretty easily, some never would, so you would get people who had committed the same crime serving wildly different sentences.

 

How would it be fair that someone served 10 years and someone else 70 years for the same crime?

 

 

I should have made my proposal clearer. The judge would specify a minimum length of time that had to be served regardless, but unless the family gave their consent to parole, the offender would serve life in prison. I specified that the mandatory life sentence should only apply in cases with no extenuating circumstances, so the possibility of someone being sentenced to a minimum of only 10 years for such an offence is remote.

 

There are problems with making such a scheme workable, as I acknowledged in the original post. I accept that there's a risk of unfair discrepancies in sentences served for similar crimes, but as things stand the system is unfair to victims' families. One family might make their peace with a sentence of a given length, another might be grievously wounded by it because they don't feel it fairly reflects how much they've suffered. If there has to be a conflict between fairness and equal consideration for murderers on the one hand and fairness and equal consideration for victims' families on the other, I choose to favour the side that had no say in whether or not the tragedy happened.

 

I think it's a distraction to focus on that conflict though. Don't concentrate on the potential for unequal lengths of time served. Concentrate instead on the potential for reconciliation between the murderers and those they've wronged, because that's the most powerful way of making up for the damage caused by the crime. I am convinced that families of murder victims will be far more willing to forgive if they feel that society has adequately recognised the extent of their suffering. And from the offender's point of view, forgiveness from the family will do more to empower them to rebuild their lives and atone for their crime than any verdict from a detached parole board ever could.

[WaltonRed]

I see the cheeky twat has appealed against his conviction and the length of sentence.

 

I'd double it instantly.