A third, more from the recommendations of the Criminal Law in 1980, namely, that a killing should be classified as murder in those situations where there is an intention to cause serious with of the risk of death. Neither an intention to cause serious nor recklessness as to death should be on its own, but together they one another, producing a test which both satisfies the of certainty and marks out some heinous but non-intended killings.

A fourth , adopted by English law until 1957 and still in force in many American jurisdictions, is some form of felony murder rule: anyone who kills during the course of a felony (or, more , a serious crime of violence) or whilst resisting arrest should be convicted of murder. Thus stated, there is no reference to the defendant's intention or of the risks: the fact that D has chosen to rape, robbery, or another serious offence, and has caused death , is held to moral grounds for placing the killing in the highest . Plainly, this is a form of criminal liability: the murder conviction is out of the ingredients of a lesser offence. the is that D has already crossed a high moral/social threshold in choosing to such a serious offence, and should therefore be held liable for whatever ensue, however unforeseeable they may be. The objections would be reduced if of the risk of death was also : in other words, if the test were the of a serious offence of violence recklessness as to death. The effect of that test would be to pick out those reckless killings which when D had already manifested substantial moral and culpability, and to classify them as murder.

Four have been described, and many others could be listed. The point is that the of intention and recklessness do not, of themselves, appear to be well to mark out those killings which are the most heinous. The law must resort to some kind of moral and social of if it is to and separate out the most heinous killings. Many people might think that a person who causes death whilst using an unlawfully held firearm or explosives ought to be convicted of murder because there is, generally speaking, no excuse for using such dangerous . Some of the people thus covered would be armed robbers, others would be terrorists. The armed robber might say that he had no intention of using the firearm, that he carried it with him simply to frighten the victim, and that it went off accidentally: if the jury believes that, should he be convicted of murder? The terrorist might say that he gave warning of the bomb for the to be cleared, and that it was unforeseeable that a deaf person should remain on the premises and be killed in the explosion, which was intended only to cause damage. If the jury believes that, should he be convicted of murder? It is possible that juries would prefer to convict of murder in such cases so as to their abhorrence of the defendant's activities in general. If so, this would suggest a social preference for regarding killings of these kinds as among the worst because of the in which they , rather than because of the defendant's of the possible . However, the Royal on Capital Punishment, which reviewed the matter thoroughly in the early 1950s, and later law-reform have accorded preference to the "general " that "persons ought not to be punished for of their acts which they did not intend or foresee". A conviction for manslaughter would be to mark the gravity of those cases in which D was not of the risk of death, and the court would have ample in sentencing to reflect the blameworthiness of D's . However, there would have to be clear of sentencing in order to avoid the intrusion of discriminatory or at this stage.

To : the existing English law classifies as murder those killings where there was an intent to kill or an intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The reason for distinguishing between murder and manslaughter must be to and to the most heinous killings as murder, and it has been questioned whether English law succeeds in this. There are of general at stake, but it is also true to say that there can be no absolutely right place in which to draw the line. The special when conviction for murder carries a mandatory penalty, particularly when that penalty is death.