By Anna Stanley, JNS
If mass-casualty attacks exploit fear as effectively as political terror, should the law not respond with similar severity regardless of motive?
In October 2024, a light-rail station five minutes from my home in Israel became the scene of a terror attack by Hamas. Two militants opened fire on passengers, then turned to knives, killing seven people and injuring 17 others. A young mother died shielding her 9‑month‑old baby son. Since that night, the shadow of that violence lingers every time I pass the station. The attack was unmistakably terrorism—planned, ideological and designed to spread fear. As mass violence is increasingly evolving to include random or psychotically driven attacks, our laws and language must evolve for this new reality.
Just days ago, on Nov. 1, another train attack unfolded, this time in the United Kingdom. On a London-bound train, a 33-year-old British man of Caribbean descent moved through the carriages, randomly stabbing passengers. Eleven people were hospitalized, nine with life-threatening injuries. Counterterrorism police were initially deployed, though authorities have since ruled the incident non-terrorist related.
This decision sits uneasily with public sentiment. A knife attack on a crowded train instinctively registers as a terrorist attack, especially when it comes only weeks after the Manchester synagogue attack. This discomfort stems from the United Kingdom’s legal definition of terrorism, which restricts charges to acts driven by ideological, political or religious motives. Without ideological motives, even the most frightening attacks are prosecuted as ordinary crimes, like murder or attempted murder.
In contrast, certain U.S. terrorism statutes, such as those covering attacks on mass transportation, can trigger federal terrorism charges based on where the attack occurs, rather than requiring an ideological motive. Had the London train stabbing occurred on a train in the United States, it could have fallen under federal terrorism statutes that focus on attacks on mass transit, regardless of ideology.
On Aug. 22, aboard a light rail in Charlotte, N.C., Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska was attacked by African-American Decarlos Brown Jr. He was suffering from schizophrenia and slashed her throat from behind. She bled to death alone. Footage of the attack gripped the nation, and her murder became a rallying point for national political debate, particularly from the right, and drew condolences from the White House. Despite no ideological motive, Brown was charged under the post-Sept. 11 federal statute covering domestic terror attacks on mass transportation; he now faces the death penalty.
While the United Kingdom still demands an ideological motive for terrorism prosecutions, recent tragedies have influenced tentative steps to address mass-casualty attacks outside that framework. A July 2024 assault in Southport, England, where a man stabbed nine young girls at a dance class, killing three of them, was not classified as terrorism. This sparked debate: If mass-casualty attacks exploit fear as effectively as political terror, should the law not respond with similar severity?
Jonathan Hall, the King’s Counsel, the United Kingdom’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, proposed reforms. In March, he outlined a new offense targeting large-scale random acts of violence on public transport or crowded places. This measure would stiffen penalties for non-ideologically motivated attacks that far exceed ordinary murder charges. This would empower prosecutors to frame atrocities like the Nov. 1 train stabbing as assaults on public safety and not merely as isolated crimes such as attempted murder, which fail to capture their scale of terror.
Beneath these incidents, though, lies a troubling reality: Mass violence is often linked to severe, untreated mental illness. Brown was not a stranger to authorities in North Carolina; his schizophrenia diagnosis was well documented. At the time of his attack, he was in a psychotic state, voicing delusions about being controlled by “material” in his body. Likewise, the train attacker in England was reportedly heard telling a victim, “the devil is not going to win” during the rampage.
A higher prevalence of mental illness is reflected in certain ethnic communities. In the United Kingdom, black people are 3.5 times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act and are more likely to have had a psychotic disorder in the past year.
Similarly, black Americans are three to four times more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia. Many of these cases were triggered by drug use. Despite the data, Britain continues inching toward cannabis legalization, even though modern strains are far more potent and linked to increased psychosis. Perhaps lawmakers remember fondly the hashish from their youth and are unacquainted with the “weed on steroids” strains of the modern day. If the legalization proceeds, there will be more violent crimes committed by psychotic people.
It’s a grim picture, wherever you place blame—a society where mass violence is not only the domain of jihadists, but increasingly being carried out by the mentally unwell.
All three train journeys—in Israel, America and England—were characterised by horrific violence, shattering the public’s sense of safety. As threats evolve, so too must the law. Justice must rise to meet the magnitude of harm. The United Kingdom’s legislative reform proposals signal a new era, where mass violence spreads fear as effectively as terror, even when no ideology guides the blade.
