Forewords to books are typically grace notes, authorship rather than content being the principal interest: who has leant dignified support to the text? Not so here. Louis Blom Cooper, that doughty campaigner against the mandatory life sentence for murder (MLSM), has thrown his combative pennyworth into the pot, praising Mitchell and Roberts' neat analysis of the current law (which in 2006 the Law Commission pronounced ‘a mess’) and welcoming the empirical evidence the authors have collected on what the public thinks and wants. But Blom Cooper does not disguise his scepticism regarding the authors' sentencing reform proposals arguing that they advance no real evidence in support of the rationale for their solution, namely that their approach has a better political chance of being adopted than the alternatives. By which point the reader's appetite is whetted for the book, which is about the real world of murder, judicial practice, public opinion and the politics of sentencing reform.

Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of Mitchell and Roberts' text comprise, respectively, succinct and painstaking reviews of: the law relating to murder in England and Wales; the origins of the MLSM; and current sentencing practice and implementation. This provides the context for Chapter 4 which scrutinises the arguments for and against the MLSM with a particular eye to public confidence. For, rather like the minimum age of criminal responsibility and our prohibitionist stance regarding potentially harmful drugs, successive political administrations have made the MLSM a ‘red line’ issue (the terms of reference for the Law Commission's 2005 review of the law relating to murder, manslaughter and infanticide, for example, expressly excluded the MLSM (Law Commission for England and Wales (2005) Consultation Paper No. 177, A New Homicide Act for England and Wales? A Consultation Paper, London)) That is, our politicians appear to not want it even hinted that they are considering a change of policy direction on the grounds that this would send the wrong signal to the public at large regarding their ‘law and order’ credentials. Which assumes that retaining the MLSM is foundational for public confidence. Yet, as Mitchell and Roberts argue, when courts are required to impose MLSMs on offenders as different in character as Peter Sutcliffe and Frances Inglis (the mercy killing of her severely disabled son), and when MLSMs may subsequently result in, at the one extreme, the offender never being released, and, at the other extreme, being released on licence after eight or even fewer years, it is as plausible to suggest that the operation of the MLSM serves to confuse the passengers on the Clapham Omnibus and generally undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system.

What, then, do the public know and think about murder and how we respond to it? Mitchell and Roberts review (Chapter 5) the existing evidence, which as far as England and Wales are concerned, is thin, most of it coming from crude, rather generalised opinion surveys, focusing on such issues as whether the death penalty is favoured. The authors commissioned the collection of much more focused survey evidence combined with focus group discussions. The picture that emerged was troublingly consistent with that gathered in other jurisdictions.

First the public have very inaccurate knowledge. Most people think that murders: are increasing in number, when in fact they have declined somewhat; that murderers are typically released on licence much earlier than is in fact the case; and that we are more lenient in our treatment of murderers compared to other European nations. No wonder, Mitchell and Roberts argue, that our politicians flee from considering reform when such misleading judgements – which those who administer our criminal justice system have done nothing to dispel – are so widely held.

They describe what emerges when focused and scenario-related questions are asked. Not surprisingly most respondents think that punishment and incapacitative purposes should largely inform sentencing for murder, whereas rehabilitation features more prominently when it comes to the sentencing of crime generally. But when asked to consider which of three sentencing options – imprisonment for the offender's natural life, 30 years or more with release at some stage, or a fixed term sentence of less than 30 years – would be appropriate for nine different homicide scenarios based on cases which resulted in a conviction for murder and the imposition of a MLSM, respondents came up with very different answers broadly consistent with the proportionality guidance provided for judges. Almost 80% of respondents considered that a fixed term sentence of imprisonment of less than ten years was appropriate for a ‘mercy killing’ case, whereas just over half of all respondents judged that a bank robber shooting a bank clerk dead should be imprisoned for the remainder of his natural life. What is particularly interesting is that fixed term sentences, albeit of very different lengths, were considered appropriate by at least half of all respondents in eight out of the nine cases (Table 6.3, p. 96) and particularly so in cases involving significant mitigation. Further, when asked to consider two ‘joint enterprise’ murder cases only one fifth of respondents considered that a conviction for murder (as opposed to manslaughter or some lesser offence) was appropriate. It is clear that when asked to consider murder and sentencing for murder the public subscribe to solutions distinctly more differentiated than the MLSM provides. Finally, Mitchell and Roberts demonstrate (Chapter 7), the better informed the public are about murder and the operation of the MLSM, the less punitive they are.

These empirical explorations provide the basis for the authors' sentencing reform proposals. They propose a ternary classification of sentences: life without parole (LWOP) for offences where there is intent to kill and multiple aggravating factors; life with parole with a minimum term of imprisonment for offences where there is intent to kill or cause serious injury and significant aggravation; and fixed term imprisonment where there is intent to cause serious injury or intent to kill with significant mitigation. This classification, they suggest, is sufficiently close to existing law and sentencing practice and informed public opinion for it to form the basis for parliamentary adoption. Mitchell and Roberts have provided us with an excellent review and an intellectually persuasive case. Whether it will breach our politicians' red line and persuade uninformed public opinion is another matter entirely.