How might a court prove someone intended to eat something?
How might a court prove someone intended to eat something?
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?
You're viewing a single thread.
This is fascinating. What do obligate carnivores eat to sustain themselves?
I would compare this to real life violent hate / sex crimes. So - trigger warning for the rest of my reply.
Like a real life hate / sex crime, the motive is going to be rooted in base emotions lurking underneath the veneer of civilization. Motives that are going to be hard (socially) to talk about. I imagine there will be ALL kinds of red flags the animals close to the perpetrator should have picked up on, but were wilfully blind to ("But his mom always said he was such a sweet jaguar!"). Investigators are going to closely look at those. They're going to ask things like "has the perpetrator (or a jaguar matching their description):"
- Been seen stalking the victim, or others in areas near where the crime took place?
- Spoken with friends or family about wanting to try meat?
- Left traces on "animalnet" or whatever that they have certain "predilections" (comments, web searches, participation in certain communities, etc)?
- Have in their possession writings by other predators, legitimizing their desires?
- Possess media depicting acts of predation?
- Have their own writings, manifestos, fantasies, etc?
- Associated with others who have similar interests?
- Are they socially isolated, with a poor support system or lack access to mental health resources?
- Any other patters of past behaviour? I. E.
Prosecutor: I'm going to read now from a sworn statement from a former associate of the accused, who has been granted anonymity by the court, due to fears of retaliation. She says, and I quote: "Back in college, we belonged to Phi-Gamma-Delta, you know, the all Birds of Prey sorority? Anyway, we used to hassle ground squirrels and sparrows and stuff... fly across the quad at night, cast shadows over rodents walking back from class alone, get drunk and make screeching noises outside the Prairie Dog dorm... You know, that you do when you're young and stupid and trying to fit in. We NEVER hurt anybody, but thinking back on it now, it was really pretty terrible stuff. Anyway, I DID feel like sometimes she went too far. Like this one time, I saw her pin a little field mouse down with her talons and kind of peck at her until she drew blood." Emphasis mine, your honor.
All of this is going to be used by prosecutors to establish motive and intent and (like in the real world) it's going to be WAY easier when there's a pattern of certain behaviours (and likely rhetoric) than when it's a pure crime of passion or opportunity. However, those have some common patterns to look at too.
Especially when it's a crime of passion / opportunity, the victim is VERY likely to be someone known, even close to the perpetrator.
I imagine in a case like that that "proving intent" is something prosecutors are going to hold over a perpetrator's head to get plea bargains: "Look, we know you've been having trouble at work, we know you were fighting with your manager about quotas and PTO, we have you on camera shouting at each other in the parking garage three hours before his gnawed on corpse was found. We're not interested in the fact that you gnawed on him... that's just biology kicking in... Plead guilty to murder, you get twenty to twenty five. Or plead not guilty and we start looking at a First Degree Predation charge... his body WAS gnawed on after all..."
As in real life, the authorities may have the perpetrator assessed by a psychologist and that
personanimal may be called as a witness by the prosecution, with deep and complex arguments being used to establish whether this particular case meets the burden of proof for First Degree Predation. In such a case, the defence may have the defendant independently assessed, and will likely get a consultant to help them figure out good cross examination questions to throw doubt on the "intent."Since your world sounds FAIRLY mature and complex, I have to wonder if there is a predation "Kink" scene... or "Prey workers" (like rabbits or gazelles you can pay to let you "hunt" them). If so is that legal and socially accepted? Or taboo and shameful? In your cop procedural show, the main characters are TOTALLY going to interrupt a "hunt" in progress, only to discover it's an elaborate role play scenario.
What if I'm a big strong lion in my day job and at home with my family and I wear a suit, and work for a big shot stock trading firm, but on the weekends, I pay this wildebeest to humiliate me, chase me around a hotel room and tell me he's going to eat my flesh? Have him pin me down and try to gnaw on me with his ridiculous herbavore teeth? Could this be used to blackmail or publicly shame me? What if the wildebeest is blackmailing me? What if I snap, kill him and then eat him to hide the crime? Am I guilty of First Degree Predation? What does my lawyer advise me to say? (In this scenario, the cop drama story is totally that I'm innocent and one of my lionesses did it when she found out what was going on...)
Also, is there "speciesism"? Or a "Predators Rights" movement? Can I go to a PRA conference where some wolf will start talking to me about how "modern culture" and "the Herbavorist movement" are "neutering obligate carnivores"... and he'll SEEM like such a nice, reasonable guy, but after he gets a few drinks in him and loosens up, he'll start talking about how "meat is a biological imperative" and "the state should just assign every wolf a flock of sheep" and how "everything went to shit when we gave rabbits and chickens the vote!"
I also assume animals have some way to write or record information, (and use other tools, if they're running lab tests) since otherwise civilization is pretty impossible. I'm curious about how that works without opposable thumbs.
First off, thank you for your detailed response! It's given me a lot to think about and build off for my lore!
As for how carnivores survive without meat, I have a detailed breakdown here of the history of their tackling of the predation problem! Needless to say they've been working on it in-universe for as long as they've multi species societies!
Since your world sounds FAIRLY mature and complex, I have to wonder if there is a predation “Kink” scene… or “Prey workers” (like rabbits or gazelles you can pay to let you “hunt” them). If so is that legal and socially accepted? Or taboo and shameful? In your cop procedural show, the main characters are TOTALLY going to interrupt a “hunt” in progress, only to discover it’s an elaborate role play scenario.
While I have not delved into that part of the world, I'd imagine there would be and it would indeed be very taboo as most animals without that kind of kink would definitely view it as a breach of interspecies trust. What I have delved into a little bit is things like edgy indie films, ARGs, and performance art in general where the actors very convincingly pretend to hunt and eat an animal but it's all scripted, and bystanders or viewers online that are not in the know could potentially end up reporting them. Generally, if both the "predator" and "prey" both independently attest that they were just pretending, that's good enough for law enforcement not to pursue charges, but if they have a strong enough suspicion, they'll probably take the "prey" aside, in private and ideally with law enforcement that are their own species or very similar (which would be a good idea anyway as different animals are represented by their own species or taxonomic governments), and ask them if everything is okay. It could be a pretty big pain in the tail if you're just trying to put on a show (just like how the creators/actors in some real world ARGs and performance art have actually had the police called on them), but it should work out eventually with no charges or permanent record entries.
I imagine in a case like that that “proving intent” is something prosecutors are going to hold over a perpetrator’s head to get plea bargains: “Look, we know you’ve been having trouble at work, we know you were fighting with your manager about quotas and PTO, we have you on camera shouting at each other in the parking garage three hours before his gnawed on corpse was found. We’re not interested in the fact that you gnawed on him… that’s just biology kicking in… Plead guilty to murder, you get twenty to twenty five. Or plead not guilty and we start looking at a First Degree Predation charge… his body WAS gnawed on after all…”
Ooh yes they absolutely do this and will also use it as a way of getting information! With the Felines for example, first degree predation is punishable by death but only if the prosecutor requests it from the Feline Ministry of Security at the start of trial, and the FMS needs to authorize it. If they catch a Feline who is a lower-ranking member of a predation ring, it’s better than nothing but they’d obviously much rather take down the leader and the entire organization. The Feline Ministry of Security can basically tell the accused “Look, your trial date has been set, the prosecution has requested authorization to use the death penalty from us, and you know what evidence they have on you. We’re still trying to decide if we want to grant that request. It’s up to you and we can’t force you to give us any information, but is there anything you want to tell us about your organization or do you want to gamble with whether you’ll be found guilty or not?” Funnily enough most of these cats don’t care that they’re killing sapient prey animals that have lives and families and stories, but break real fast when it’s their own life on the line.
Also, is there “speciesism”? Or a “Predators Rights” movement? Can I go to a PRA conference where some wolf will start talking to me about how “modern culture” and “the Herbavorist movement” are “neutering obligate carnivores”… and he’ll SEEM like such a nice, reasonable guy, but after he gets a few drinks in him and loosens up, he’ll start talking about how “meat is a biological imperative” and “the state should just assign every wolf a flock of sheep” and how “everything went to shit when we gave rabbits and chickens the vote!”
Absolutely! In fact that is the main ideological conflict in this world, as well as the main conflict in general. While there are others, the two most common ideologies/philosophies are Unitism, which says every species is equal but have different physical characteristics, which give them different advantages and disadvantages that make them better at some things and worse at other things, and it is only when different species collaborate instead of trying to kill each other, can all animals use their natural advantages to their full extent and collectively cancel out their natural disadvantages by having other species fill those gaps (I not so jokingly like to call it "vegan socialism"). This is contrasted with Trophism, which subscribes to the "your place in the natural order" type thing and basically if you're prey, you should not only accept being hunted and eaten without question or criticism, you should be thankful because you're fulfilling your purpose, and that if you're a predator, you should also accept your biological need for prey without question or criticism, and it's as much a crime for you to not eat your prey as it is for prey to resist being eaten with any technology other than their naturally evolved defenses, and it's even more of a sin for carnivores to develop technologies that can allow them to digest and subsist on plant based alternatives, like the Unitists have been developing. Needless to say they don't get along with most other species, especially not Unitist ones. My original post was made in context of Unitist societies as they are where my main characters are and tend to guard their territories pretty heavily against the Trophist societies for obvious reasons, but the Trophists play a major part in my plot which I admittedly I only have an outline of and haven't actually started writing yet.
Based on the linked write up, this civilization sounds like it's headed for some ecological and population growth calamities. The industrial farm effort (and land use!) needed to feed every animate being on the planet with plant matter, PLUS every prey species in the world with NO predation pressure on population growth... this is train wreck waiting to happen. XD
This world is very intriguing. I look forward to you posting more about it.
Thank you so much!
If I'm being honest I do handwave the ecological issues (ironic considering I literally studied ecology in university, this may or may not also be in small part my way of pretending those rules don't exist while staying up all night cramming for ecology courses). I do use some real environmental science as part of my lore of how the animals keep their ecosystem healthy without predation though, things like techniques for stewardship of plants and actively maintaining forests since they live in them.
Actually, there are several major aspects that are kind of ambiguously addressed: why every single animal is sapient, how they can all cross communicate, and it's implied that they have human scale lifespans mainly because a 15-20 year lifespan for a cat isn't very conducive to complex character growth, and of course, since prey aren't being eaten yet haven't gotten horrifically overpopulated, they have lower birth rates or have better control over their reproduction. My more favored possibility is that because this world canonically takes place millions of years after humans mysteriously disappeared from the Earth, the humans might have been experimenting with modifying animals to be sapient, with a longer lifespan and generally more human-like with something like a gene-editing retrovirus that could spread to other animals. When the humans evacuated or went extinct the virus got out and eventually infected every animal, giving them all sapience, long lifespans, and all the other "glue lore" that make this world work. Maybe just out of curiosity as to whether an animal like a cat or mouse can gain these traits, or maybe, they knew that their time on Earth was coming to an end, and passed on the gift of sapience to the animals so that maybe they can start a better and longer lasting society than humanity, so the Earth can have another chance at complex intelligent life. I talk more about it here (Reddit link).
Also, since the humans left plenty of ruins and plenty of things containing information that the animals eventually deciphered, it gave them a huge boost in their own science and technology when they otherwise would have had to redevelop everything independently. In the process, they also adopted a lot of the standards that humans have developed. It's already there, it's already been well thought out, why not just use it? It's how I explain why they're a non-human society using things like meters, kilograms, a 24 hour day, and other human constructs and also generally just think a lot like humans with some animal traits. This is more glue lore, mainly because I didn't want to add yet another layer of complexity that readers have to keep track of by inventing their own constructs, measurement units, etc.