{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021879021879021878, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.678832116788321, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Some notes about the idea of "Responsibility" in Law].

Some philosophers would argue that, if it is true that, in fact, both our deeds and their consequences depend on the combined force of precedent and posterior factors that we do not control, it could make sense not to be blamed for the consequences of our deeds. Legal responsibility, however, is safe from this attack because it does not aim at resolving those metaphysical issues: it only makes sense if understood as a construction that reflects standards of reasonable behaviour. Law presupposes that we are able to moderate our conduct in light of the interests of others in their security and liberty and, therefore, it presupposes that it is fair to make us responsible of the costs that our deeds impose on them.