Last October, a light rail station five minutes from my home in Israel became the scene of a Hamas terror attack. Two militants opened fire on passengers, then turned to knives, killing seven and injuring 17. A young mother died shielding her nine month‑old 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. But 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 November 1st, another train attack unfolded in the UK. On a London-bound service, Anthony Williams, a 32 year-old British man of Caribbean descent, moved through the carriages, stabbing passengers. Eleven people were hospitalised, nine with life-threatening injuries. Counter-terrorism police were initially deployed, though the authorities have since ruled the incident non-terrorist.

This decision sits uneasily with public sentiment. A knife attack on a crowded train instinctively registered as terrorist, especially only weeks after the Manchester synagogue attack. This discomfort stems from the UK’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 US 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 US train it could fall under federal terrorism statutes that focus on attacks on mass transit, regardless of ideology. On August 22nd aboard Charlotte’s light rail, 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. Her murder becoming 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-9/11 federal statute covering terrorist attacks on mass transportation and now faces the death penalty.

While the UK still demands 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 Axel Rudakubana stabbed nine young girls at a dance class – killing three – 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 KC, the UK’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, proposed reforms. In March 2025 he outlined a new offence 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 London-bound train stabbings as assaults on public safety – not mere isolated crimes such as attempted murder, which fail to capture their scale of terror.

Beneath these incidents lies a troubling reality: mass violence is often linked to severe, untreated mental illness. Decarlos Brown Jr was not a stranger to the authorities; 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 London-bound train attacker was reportedly heard telling passengers “the devil is not going to win” during the rampage.

A higher prevalence of mental illness is reflected in certain ethnic communities. In the UK, 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 legalisation, 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 legalisation 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 – the one in Israel, in America, and England last week – 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 UK’s legislative reform proposals signal a new era, where mass violence spreads fear as effectively as terror, even when no ideology guides the blade.

Anna Stanley is an open-source investigator specialising in extremism. She previously worked in intelligence roles for the UK Foreign Office and police. Find her on X.