Even if intent isn’t written into a specific law, the whole system is built to specifically allow intent to be considered in so many stages. Sometimes they don’t even decide to prosecute.
Laws exists specifically to create a functioning society. Laws do not exist for the sake of having laws. Any sane person enforcing any kind of rule understands this.
This take is like programmers getting angry when businesses don’t care about the quality the the code or something, forgetting that the whole reason people hire programmers is to solve business problems, not to write text on a computer. Total miss of the point of the exercise.
Mental state (which is much broader than intent, though intent is an aspect of it) is an important consideration for criminal law and most offenses have a required mental state (strict liability offenses are a small minority). And mental state is, yes, considered broadly beyond the formal requirements, too.
But to say that “intent is literally the heart of criminal law” is both literally false and substantively misleading.
it is literally not. Though it is a requirement of some crimes.
> You have to have intended a crime for it to be a criminal act.
No, you don't, in general. You have to have intended a particular outcome if the particular crime requires that, but plenty of crimes do not have such requirements (or specifically do not apply if intent is present). E.g., “depraved heart” murder, involuntary manslaughter, and any strict liability crime or crime of negligence or recklessness.