Palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will

Controversial: Pro#9: "When something unforeseen happens it is the judges right to conclude that the parliament had not foreseen the consequences, and that they have the power to propose or disregard it". Con: There are reasonable people in the world that believe in forgiving others on the mistakes they make. Francis Palmer could have been a religious man and forgiven his grandson for the wrongful act he tried to commit if he survived. Pro's rebuttal: Francis Palmer could have been a religious men but there is no evidence of that fact. Even if he were, there are some thing that can not be forgiven even if you are a religious men. I believe that if your grandson wants to kill you for the financial gain that would have been his when you died would constitute as such a time. Religion also has no bearing in the law due to the separation of church and state. Furthermore in premise 4 it was stated that Elmer was already planning to remove his grandson from the will. Pro#10: "10 is true because it is reasonable to assume that the legislation would not want an heir to murder their ancestor just to receive their would be inheritance." Con: Our legislation's job is to protect the rights and laws of the people but a will is a written document based on the wishes of the person writing the will. Should we allow the government to rewrite a will that is meant to follow one's wishes before they pass away? An example is the case of Owens v. Owens, the wife was able to receive her deceased husband's estate and she help commit a criminal act by helping to kill her husband in order to get the estate. Our government allowed her to receive her deceased husbands estate. Pro's rebuttal: While you are correct with stating that our legislations job is to protect the rights and laws of the people but a will is a written document based on the wishes of the person writing the will. But what would be the true wishes of Palmer if he was alive and he found out his grandson was plotting his murder. Isn"t it safe to assume that, that knowledge would make him rewrite his will. If he were already thinking about changing the will what is to say that this would not make him change it. I believe he would have because any resonable person would. So is it hard to assume that the court would assume the same thing. While you are correct that in Owens V. Owens the wife received her dead husbands estate but if the court granted a new trial like it stated in the reading should have happened there is no saying what might have been. Questions: 1) If the person that committed the criminal act served jail time and was punished, should the person receive the estates since he or she was punished? Pros Answer: No the person should not reseave the estate. Elmer was punished for the murder of his grandfather. The punishment he recovered for that crime should not be relevant to him getting his inheritance because these are two different matters. One is a criminal matter while the other is civil. The real question you should be asking yourself is does Elmer deserve a reward for murdering his grandfather because that is what the inheritance ultimately is. Should the court allow Elmer to be rewarded for murder? If so then how many other murderers or other criminals will receive benefits for the crimes that they have committed. Crime should not be rewarded. 2) What if Elmer murders someone else while his grandfather was still alive? Should the law be that anyone that commits a criminal and violent act such as murder not be in a will that will leave them with property or other estates? Pro's Answers: If Palmer was still alive when Elmer murdered someone else what is to say that Elmer would still be in the will. In premise 4 of my argument you will see that the reason that Elmer murdered his grandfather was because his grandfather was already thinking about removing him from the will. This has nothing to do with the law because if Palmer was alive and Elmer murdered someone there is a very good chance that, that would be the final straw that would make the grandfather remove him from the will. If that happened then this case would be irrelevant because he would not be in the will.