{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023596938775510203, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0031887755102040817, 'mean_word_length': 4.524647887323944, '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}}
Murder And The Ruthless Risk-Taker

One of the more intractable problems in the criminal law is that of the ruthless risk-taker in the law of homicide. The label ‘ruthless risk-taker’ is used here to denote the killer whose conduct, whilst not directly designed to kill, nevertheless manifests such a callous disregard for human life as to merit the label of a murderer.1 For instance, a terrorist bomber blows up a crowded building without proper warning to those inside,2 or an arsonist pours petrol into an occupied house and sets it on fire.3 Where these actions result in death, the person responsible may deny any intention to kill; indeed, the claim ‘I never meant to kill anyone, but . . .’ is a characteristic mark of the ruthless risk-taker. Such cases cause great difficulty in any legal system where murder is defined as a crime requiring intent. Even where this is not the case, there is still the problem of drawing the line between murder and lesser grades of homicide. Why is this sort of case thought to merit classification as murder rather than manslaughter? The very fact that many experienced judges feel that this should be the case is not entirely without significance;4 but there must surely be more to this than a mere judicial hunch or reflex, be it ever so educated.5 There are at least four arguments for stigmatizing ruthless risk-takers, or at least some ruthless risk-takers, as murderers. The first is the argument from equivalence; this is based on the philosophical view that foresight of consequences is a species of intention, or at