Palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.

A will is a document that gives instructions for managing a testator"s estate. In order for it to be valid, a will must be in writing, signed and attested by the testator. Palmer wrote the will and the courts enforced it. The law is written vaguely so that lawyers and judges can read in between the lines and apply that law to more than one case. The will was written with the intent of Palmer leaving property and money to his beloved family members after dying of natural causes. He didn"t expect someone to take matters into their own hands to violate his right to life. The law however has an hidden implication that if someone violates that right they will not be rewarded. The Courts are now responsible for the will and they have the governing power to change or modify it in order to help defends the needs and wants of the testator. The courts have the right to do so in order to protect the deceased party, and in protecting him, they made a necessary call to alter the will and remove the defendant from receiving a reward for his crime. The defendant does not rightfully deserve that money both morally and lawfully. Yes the defendant is in prison for committing the crime and yes justice is almost won but only when the defendant walks away with nothing. He started out with something and he lost everything when he took the life of his grandfather in his own hands. We can argue about morals all day, but the law states that it will not reward a criminal for its crime. If that be the case if a bank robber gets away with the cash and hides his money in an undisclosed location, gets caught in the act and serves his time, does the court allow him to get that money when after he serves his time, no because he stole it. The defendant in this case stole that money by murdering his grandfather before he had the time to change the will. In the case we see" A will is made to leave certain belongings to whomever the testator issued them to. (2.3.2) The will was not intended to leave things to those who cause the testators death. (2.3.3) If the statutes left out an important sentence or word then it would be purposely done, and vice versa. (2.3.4) Lawmakers don"t always perfectly express what they are trying to say, they either write too much or too little so that the judges can read in-between the lines to find the implicit meaning. (2.3.5) Sometimes a case is purposely vague because the meaning is hidden within and this allows the judge to have reasoning to find a solution (2.4.4) The reason the law is constructed like that is because you cannot classify a term for every case there would be too many terms and it wouldn"t leave room for everyone but only a specific type of situation. (2.4.5) To fully understand the right judgment to determine the fairness of the statute, one would guess that a lawyer should forsee the future clause in this case. (3.4.6) If you couldn"t forsee the future events then how could a reasonable man? (3.4.7) If a negative occurrence arises from not being too specific then a judge has the right to conclude that the unsuspecting results could not be foreseen by parliament, and thus they have the power to propose the clause based on fairness, although if a situation where the unreasonable man is present the clause doesn"t help him because it isn"t fair to help him get out of trouble that he put himself in. (3.4.14) These rules that are stated in public policy has a basis in universal law and was never outdated by statutes. (4.7.3) The statutes were applied in NY Mutual Life insurance company V Armstrong (117 U.S. 591) (4.7.4) The courts held that a person who obtained a life policy for someone else and would receive payments upon that death, but then killed that person to receive the money would not receive it. (4.7.5) Justice Field wrote that without looking at the proof of Hunter"s motives in obtaining the policy, he gave up his rights when he murdered the person insured. (4.7.6) It would be criticism to the jurisprudence of the country if one could get the money from life insurance off of the person they murdered. (4.7.7) It would be like gaining money for intentionally committing arson. (4.7.8) Under the civil law one cannot inherit property from a will from the sponsor they murdered. (5.10.1) Right before the defendant murdered his benefactor, it wasn"t certain that he was ever going to be the official heir. (5.11.2) The defendant could have died before the benefactor and he could have also lost his right to the inheritance. (5.11.3) The defendant made himself an heir by committing the murder with hopes of receiving the benefactor property after committing this crime. (5.11.4) The punishment doesn"t take anything from him, but it doesn"t reward him for his crime. (5.12.2) In Owens v. Owens (6.13.1) The wife was convicted of being an accessory to the murder of her husband and the holding was that she was still entitled to his dower. (6.13.2) The ruling for a dower is that the wife receives it when she has survived her husband"s death and thus is at lost for support and protection. (6.13.4) It doesn"t make sense to make provisions for a wife who claims to be a widow that cannot receive support and protection because of her own willful actions in making herself such. (6.13.5) A widow cannot acquire property rights and call herself a widow when she intentionally made herself such. (6.13.6) If the implication isn"t clear enough then there should then be a precedent in the law, that when a will is drafted, it should now contain a clause where, if a party who is to obtain property and money takes the life of a benefactor they will forfeit the right to obtain the reward. In a contract there are tons of implications; in the law of unconscionability, the law has always abided by this without necessarily stating it. This along with the missing clause in the will is evident, the law will not reward a guilty party for their crimes by allowing them to receive the collateral damages that they incurred.