I was a Litigation Specialist for 12 years, and basically having "intent" laws punishes a man for his thoughts (and/or people's assumptions as to what his thoughts might be) ... which, to me, is a crime unto itself. Depending on the evidence involved, however, proving "intent" is often very hard to do in a court of law "beyond a reasonable doubt." It really all depends on the amount (and kind) of evidence.

Regarding the validity of intent laws, I can understand having them for an "intent to commit murder" case, for example, because the consequences are so dire--but even here the burden of proof of intent to commit murder is huge, with not much room for "reasonable doubt," that there simply has to be hard evidence in order for it to stick.

To show what I am talking about, say for example you get arrested for attempting to kill your wife ... and they find a book hidden under your mattress entitled "How to Kill Your Spouse." (Now they have evidence.) And suppose they discover you have made repeated inquiries on the "limits" of her insurance policy ... now they have motive. And suppose they further find a small vial of arsenic stashed away inside your wall ... still more evidence ... and if they put all of this together with the fact your wife is green & half-dead with her hair falling out ... and tests come back to show that she has severe arsenic poisoning ... I am pretty sure you would be charged and convicted of "Attempted Murder." If, however, your wife was perfectly fine and hadn't been poisoned at that point ... but all of the other elements were in place ... the jury would have a much tougher time convicting you.

Therefore, if we apply these same principles to a dogfight busts, and some guy has a bunch of conditioning equipment, he's got a room full of dogfighting mags and books, he's got cabinets full of medicine ... and if you add to these facts the additional fact that he's got a yardful of chopped-up dogs ... the chances are very high that such a guy is going to get charged and convicted for dogfighting.

If, however, the guy has a yardful of dogs without a mark on them ... or (if they're marked) he's got photo-after-photo of him hog hunting out in the woods (a legal explanation for all of the cut marks) ... then the odds are very slim that there is enough concrete evidence to have anything stick. Typically, you have to have the concrete evidence (the injuries) to make things stick.

That is just the way things work.

Jack