Context: This is a world inhabited by intelligent, non-anthro animals, some of which have decided to outlaw hunting and eating prey in favour of living in harmony and cooperating.
They have a zero tolerance policy for predation and it is criminalized extremely heavily. Depending on what species or taxon you are (all animals have the right to be tried by members of their own species and taxa, and they are responsible for carrying out sentences of their own kind too), First Degree Predation, where you personally kill then eat an animal, is the only crime that formally carries the death penalty. Regular first degree murder where you "merely" kill an animal without intent to eat them only has a maximum sentence of life in prison without parole. Second Degree Predation (aka Simple Predation) is where you obtain meat with the intention of eating it without personally killing anything, carries only a mandatory fixed term prison sentence in addition to losing certain freedoms post release.
However, their laws on the issue is very much based on intent as that is their philosophy, that because they are all sapient and no longer bound by their natural hunter instincts, they are responsible for their own actions. You don't have to actually eat the prey you killed to have committed First Degree Predation, and the inverse is technically true as well, where if you kill an animal for some other reason and only after they're dead do you decide to eat them, then you're technically only guilty of murder and Second Degree Predation instead of First Degree Predation. There are also legal ways that certain animals can obtain animal tissue, for example, as skin grafts and organ transplants, autopsy and forensic investigations, or for general research. Because animals handling tissue in these cases don't intend to eat it, it does not fall under Second Degree Predation. However, if you buy animal meat and later decide not to eat it, that's still considered predation.
Especially with the nature of eating and digesting food, law enforcement only has a very small time window to order a suspect to undergo lab testing of what's in their belly where it will actually show a positive hit for animal tissue, so my original thought is that the intent clause is meant to make prosecuting predation easier, since they wouldn't need to actually prove that the accused has animal tissue in their digestive tract at any point, just that they wanted at some point for some form of animal tissue to end up inside them.
I know there are many real life laws that use intent in a similar way, but I don't know how courts actually prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Can anyone who's delved more into the legal side of worldbuilding comment on how the courts in my world might prove (or disprove) that someone intended to eat another animal when they do not have direct evidence that the animal was indeed eaten?
I’m seeing some analogies between second degree predation and drug possession charges. In the latter, it is written as the willful possession of illegal substances, meaning the prosecution must demonstrate mens rea, or the guilty mind. If someone is not aware that they are in possession of an illegal substance, or are not aware that the substance is illegal, they have a valid defense against the crime. What happens in your world if someone plants meat in someone’s home? Would they need to prove they were not guilty of predation, or can they maintain a presumption of innocence despite being “caught red handed” in possession?
Ultimately, for any felony crime, text messages, photos, letters, history of past usage, discarded or used paraphernalia, etc., all can be used in establishing mens rea in the case. Even song lyrics or poetry written by a defendant have been entered into evidence, see the recent murder case against YNW Melly.
Thus, the prosecution must prove to the jury that the defendant willfully intended to commit the crime, which depending on prevailing public opinion, may be an easier or harder bar to clear depending on jury composition. For instance, as has been described in that article, the current trend is against accepting “artistic expression” as evidence, however, 30-50 years ago, such evidence would have been used with no qualms whatsoever.