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?
For drug arrests, intent is often demonstrated through paraphernalia. Like, possessing a bunch of ziplock bags with your weed might catch you intent to distribute, which results both in distribution charges being leveled against normal people who have ziplock bags in their kitchen and in dealers selling weed in weird sketchy packaging.
In this case, paraphernalia could take the form of butchery tools. Skinning knives, cleavers, bone saws, etc. Possession of meat preservation tools like sausage makers and curing salts. These could be used as circumstantial evidence.
This is a world inhabited by intelligent, non-anthro animals,
I wonder if OP's world has advanced tool making and use if the animals are non-anthropomorphic?
common law courts tend to have a process called the 'hybrid test' for determining mens rea.
- the subjective test, where court needs to be convinced the accused - this is the easiest one in terms of obviously if there's a confession or as other commenters have mentioned paraphernalia etc. then court is satisfied
- the objective test, which is actually very subjective - would a normal person have done the criminal act in the same position? in cases where the accused denies intention, then court speculates on if a normal person without criminal intent would have done the same. as you can imagine, this is all very vibes based and not actually all that objective - courts are probably assuming, for example, a neurotypical person.
- ex: For example, let's say someone is accused of assault but they claim they didn't intend to hurt the victim. For the objective part, the court would ask - if a reasonable person was in the same situation, would they have still committed the assault or would they have controlled themselves? If a reasonable person likely would have avoided the criminal act, then that suggests the accused had some criminal intent, even if they say otherwise.
- the hybrid test is just weighing up what they think from both factors - the evidence (subjective) and the vibes (objective)
keep in mind that american courts actually have a lot of different standards of proof, and 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is actually reserved for specific circumstances. commonwealth countries tend to have two which are different ways of saying 'more likely than not' vs 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. most commenters have more or less explained the subjective test, just without the terminology, and the objective test is what you're probably thinking of.
[This part is more legal information that might help you expand/a basic surface level analysis of what you've said]
there are generally four levels of mens rea used in common law prosecution:
negligently - a reasonable person ought to be aware of a substantial/unjustifiable risk that constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care.
recklessness - the actor has consciously disregarded a substantial/unjustifiable risk
knowing - the actor is practically certain their conduct will result in said criminal act
purposefully - the actor purposefully engages in their conduct with the desire to cause the result
in commonwealth jurisdictions 'knowing' is split into 'oblique' and 'knowing' which doesn't really matter
the last two are generally considered equally prosecutable. you can find a basic expansion on these in Borden v United States, at Section 2 of Justice Kagan's opinion. what your system is saying about predation is that it's a strict liability offense, but sort of in the opposite way that strict liability works. strict liability punishes purely off actus reus, where this system punishes purely off mens rea, so i would recommend adding a descriptor for it similar to strict liability.
Curious that First Degree Murder is punished more harshly than Simple Predation. I mean, a murder would have to have been committed before the predation could happen right?
So how would you see a situation were one of these animals would be accused of the crime of Predation? Like, how would anybody know to accuse Tony the Tiger or Winnie-the-Pooh of eating Grettle Goat?
I mean, a murder would have to have been committed before the predation could happen right?
I probably should have made it more clear, but if you kill an animal with intent that someone will eat it, not necessarily you, that's first degree predation and not just murder. Murder is only when you have no intention that the victim will be eaten.
So how would you see a situation were one of these animals would be accused of the crime of Predation? Like, how would anybody know to accuse Tony the Tiger or Winnie-the-Pooh of eating Grettle Goat?
They are pretty technologically advanced and the public is surveilled quite heavily. They also have a lot of forensic technologies like testing of stomach contents or scanning for the victim's DNA on and around the suspect. I imagine it would be similar to how we can convict someone of murder even without the body because the murderer disposed of it.
So in this world, is predation an urge that a predator species has to fight against (like in the manga/anime Beastars) or is the desire to hunt/eat meat just a craving like me wanting to eat a ham sandwich?
In theory they should not have cravings at all and those that do receive therapy to prevent them from acting on those cravings (just wanting to eat prey is not a crime obviously, and while it is still very socially taboo, the government's stance is that they would much rather animals feel safe to admit to their doctors and other officials these kinds of cravings without fear of being punished, since then they can treat them and actively prevent predation instead of prosecuting them after they've acted on those cravings). Actually, the main themes of this world are that the laws of nature are not set in stone, that intelligence and sapience give animals the faculties to override their basic instincts and be responsible for their actions, and that technology can liberate animals, even obligate carnivores, from the horrors of needing to kill to live.
You could have an emphasis on experts who investigate the scene and make claims as to whether or not the scene was conducive to predation. For example, if there was tall grass and a tree, then it'd be a great place for lurking. If it was at a watering hole commonly used by both animals then it's more likely to be social mores. Then you could have a discourse about corrupt officials versus virtuous officials.
Star nosed moles as Detectives and Crime Scene investigators as their sense of smell is insanely good. Does the accused smell like the victim? Does the accused animal's property smell like the victim? Would there be any reason for the accused animal's person or property to smell like the victim?
Also, having situations where "predator" species are being framed by "non-predator" species because nobody would expect Jessica Rabbit to be a serial killer and all the blame is directed toward the family of foxes that live in the neighborhood.
