Motive Matters Not

I like to pick apart philosophical matters and other nonsense, on the penultimate days of each year.
Something which I've long thought to be nonsense is the concept of a motive, a man's internal state,
in the context of crimes or other actions.  Such things shouldn't be taken into legal consideration.

The existence of the lie is why I believe this.  In a so-called high-trust society, I can understand
taking a man at his word, when only he can comment on some matter; outside of utopia, however, a man
shouldn't be trusted to report on his internal state faithfully.  Witnesses are unrelated to motive,
for a man is the one witness to his own motive, and can't strictly be trusted to comment truthfully.

Laws ought to be based on only that which is directly observable, such as a new death or damage some
property has taken or some similar such thing.  It's naught but foolishness to give a man some other
sentence based on how he causes a death, based purely on motive.  A doctor whose patient dies during
surgery, accidental or not, is very different from the difference between shooting or running over a
man, accidental or not.  People are already wary of accidentally killing others, as is right, and it
makes little sense, from my view, to add incentives to make deaths look like accidents over murders.

The only reasonable way to progress with this in mind is to remove nonsensical laws that take motive
into account.  This, clearly, requires societal collapse, with only a small chance of no repetition.
.