Exploring the Mandatory Life Sentence for Murder by B.Mitchell and J.V.Roberts. Oxford: Hart (2012) 196pp. £31.00pb ISBN 978‐1‐849‐46228‐0

Abstract

Building on research conducted in 2010 exploring public attitudes to sentencing for murder, this book considers one of the sacred cows of sentencing policy: the mandatory life sentence. In drawing together their findings from both interviews and focus groups, the authors argue that contrary to the prevailing view of politicians, the mandatory life sentence is so blunt an instrument that it might actually undermine public confidence – and their research finds support for fixed-term determinate sentences as an alternative in some scenarios. However, Mitchell and Roberts's proposals for reform appear to run rather ahead of their findings as they envisage a new sentencing framework in which around half of all offenders convicted of murder would receive a disposal other than life imprisonment; surprisingly little consideration is given to the changes to release arrangements that their new framework would entail. Whilst the authors advocate a graduated release from custody – by the Parole Board – for offenders who receive a fixed-term sentence for murder, with the last portion being served in the community under strict conditions and with close supervision, it is not clear what arrangements will be made for those offenders who the Parole Board decline to release early, but who must, presumably, be automatically released at the expiry of their determinate term. Although the proposals limit fixed-term imprisonment to those not regarded as posing an unacceptable risk to public safety, this decision would be made at the time of sentencing rather than at release and there must be a concern that the risk posed by some of these offenders might increase after a significant number of years in custody. The research also raises interesting questions about the relative roles of risk and retribution in the sentence for murder. In the most evenly-split scenario, that of a woman convicted of murder having hit her husband over the head with an ashtray following a row over money, 55% of respondents decided that a 20-year custodial sentence – served in full before being released unconditionally – would definitely or probably be an acceptable alternative to a life sentence which required spending twelve years in prison before being released on licence. One wonders which of these two alternatives would actually feel more punitive to the offender. This reader, at least, would be tempted to opt for the latter punishment if offered the choice. This book is a welcome addition to the debate surrounding the mandatory life sentence, particularly as its retention is frequently justified by reference to public opinion; the findings, therefore, add an important new dimension to the discussion. In an ideal world, the sensible framework proposed by the authors would lead to a more flexible and coherent sentencing regime for murder. However, as consideration of ‘risk’ has always been a significant element of the life sentence, it is well worth noting the potential dangers of adopting the proposed new framework: care would have to be taken to ensure that low-risk offenders do not end up serving longer, albeit determinate, custodial sentences, whilst others are released from prison automatically despite now posing a danger to the public.