From a practical perspective, it's hard to wish for or imagine a legal system that doesn't rely upon judicial interpretation of intent. An example would be causing the death of another human being. Would you want all four of these incidents to be treated the same from a legal perspective?

- A surgery, which is known to have a 50/50 chance of success even at the hands of an excellent surgeon, goes poorly and the patient dies.

- A serial killer spends six months plotting the murder of his victim before executing them.

- A shoving match breaks out at a bar. Somebody slips, falls, hits their head on the ground, and dies.

- You accidentally frighten somebody by sneezing in a quiet library. They have a heart attack and die.

From a purely logical perspective, these are literally the same thing. A person dies! Realistically speaking, any legal system needs to consider intent.

If you would put aside your emotions for a second, you would see that this is clearly just an issue of different priorities and values -- on both sides. And the side that has the power has priorities that presumably, given your phrasing, disagree with yours. I understand that can be frustrating and that that frustration might lead you to questionable rhetorical devices, but it won't change the fact of the situation.

No, the court looks to facts to establish intent. It's not possible to look into someone's brain, but courts are very, very comfortable with looking at facts to determine something about what's going on in there.

Crimes like first-degree murder have intent as a requirement. People are convicted of it all the time, and it's based on facts and evidence from before and after the killing.

Yes, it does mean that.