Riggs v Palmer

Amina Amjed Riggs v Palmer Round 4 1.What you say is true, that Elmer Palmer did indeed commit a malicious crime by murdering his grandfather only to attain, before its timely due, what had already been named to him in his grandfather"s will 2.It is, without a doubt, a cruel act for which one should be punished accordingly. 3.However, I do not agree that he would be without remorse if he is granted his inheritance from the testator"s will. 4.He would have sufficient time to repent his wrongdoing for which he is punished. He would not be able to attain and enjoy his estate/property which he was made beneficiary until after he has fulfilled his sentence for committing murder. 5.Not only would revoking and/or altering the will of the original testator, Francis Palmer, towards the defendant, Elmer Palmer, be cruel and excessive punishment but it would be altering the original letter of the law to better fit a moral, conscious based decision than that of a rational and reasonable one. 6.In accordance with the law, the legislators have made it simple enough to comprehend as to when and how a will may be made, revoked, and altered. It holds then, that when these regulations have been fully complied with there is no room for the exercise of equitable jurisdiction by courts in such matter. 7.I agree, to the fact, that through rational interpretation a will is not altered but only the letter of the will is comprehended fully I accordance to the case at present. 8.The statute at hand, without a doubt, states that no will in writing, nor any part of said will shall be revoked or altered, after the testator has passed away. There are no explicit provisions made after said statute that cover the facts in the case of Riggs v. Palmer. 9.Once again, I would say that once the defendant has already been tried and convicted of murder, he has already repented his crime. He has not been able to enjoy the possessions he obtained from his grandfather, Francis Palmer"s will. In that time he has awaited not only the time that he would have to wait, if his grandfather, Francis Palmer, had died of natural causes, but probably a long time after, to enjoy his estate/property left to him in said will. 10.It is not inherently justifiable for one to benefit from a crime, but in the case at hand, the law did not state any provisions to keep Elmer Palmer from legally attaining the contents of the will prescribed to him. 11.To this end, it could not have been the intention of the law makers, to deprive a beneficiary from his legal claim in which he/she was made part of, without undue influence or force, by the rational and reasonable decision making of the testator. 12.The law provides that once a will becoming active, the contents of the will should pass as they have been applied by the testator. 13.Elmer Palmer, the defendant, is already paying his debt to the law and society and to the aggrieved party for the murder of his grandfather, Francis Palmer; therefore, no further punishment should be granted to him. 14.He has already been punished to full extent of criminal law for committing murder and further punishment would be beyond what the law provides. 15. If the will is expanded upon, by way of alteration, or by way of revoking certain rights and/or grants provided by the original will of the testator, the courts are taking into their hands what is not granted to them by the legislators and in doing so they are creating what is not in their right and/or jurisdiction to create. 16.For the court to alter or expand upon the will of the testator, who is no longer present, is to change the entire meaning of the original will when it was first created. 17.By doing so, the will no longer has meaning and the true intent with which it was made by the testator, Francis Palmer, has been deterred from said will. 18.If law makers had intended for courts to take such actions than there would be no need for legislators and only the courts would make laws and expand upon them. 19.Therefore, I believe that depriving the defendant, Elmer Palmer, of his rightful possessions, would be exceeding on the criminal law and punishing the defendant for a crime more than need be. Elmer Palmer should be allowed to keep his inheritance as was the wish of the testator.