Palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will

Pro"s rebuttal to Con"s Rebuttal: Is it really an assumption. It is stated in the reading that Palmer did put a provision in his will but to prevent him from revoking it he poisons his grandfather. (1.1.5) This is non controversial. What is to say that if he was alive then what is to say that Elmer wouldn't remove Palmer. Their is no saying what he would do, but you have to assume that Palmer is a reasonable men and wouldn't allow a person who wants him dead to receive any of the inheritance that would have been his. That would have been a reward and why would Palmer want to reward Elmer for killing him. Cons Previous Premises: 3.) The capacity and power of the individual that will dispose of his or her property after death, should be exercised according to what the will states and the legislature can't assume that they will have control and has to understand what is said in the will. 5.) The courts do not have the power to enforce to improve the justice system. 6.) The words of the statute are: "No will in writing, except in the cases hereinafter mentioned, nor any part thereof, shall be revoked or altered otherwise". Even the courts have an opinion that a will should not change if the benefactor passed away. There are many laws that are not fair and individuals receive stronger sentences for crimes that are not harsh. But we have to follow the laws and obey them. Elmer did commit a harsh crime and was punished but changing the laws means that all future case may have a different outcome. I am not saying that Elmer should not be punished for the crime he committed but if he was punished for it, then we should not alter what the will states. We can't go by assumptions in our judicial system, our laws are not created by assumptions. Pro"s rebuttal to Con"s Rebuttal: But how can you know that the grandfather would"t change his will. He is dead because his grandson killed him. The court has the right to assume that if his grandfather were alive then he would have changed the will anyway. His grandfather already had certain provisions in his will so you know that he was suspicious of his grandson. That was the reason Palmer killed him. So that Elmer couldn"t activate these provisions. (1.1.5) Your assumption is that Elmer"s mother would forgive him for killing his grandfather her father. What you are asking is for Elmer"s mother to forgive her Elmer for killing her father. Even though the killer is her own son, I believe you are asking too much. You are making her choose between her fathers Elmer her father who did nothing wrong except leave Palmer a large inheritance and her son Palmer who wanted easy money so he kills his grandfather. Is anyone that forgiving? Does it make it right? I believe so. What right does a murderer have to a property that the person he murders has left him. Does this give the right for others to follow in Palmer's footsteps and kill their relative to receive their inheritance early? That is what would happen if palmer receives the inheritance. This precedence would allow others to follow his footsteps. Cons 2nd Rebuttal: The Judicial System protect the laws and rights for the people. One of the many jobs that the system does is bring justice to the people and make sure the guilty gets punished for the crime they commit. If someone was guilty and sentenced to prison and served his time, then we should be able to move on and not reside on the past. If we allow our court system to change wills and maybe contracts, then we would have no say and the system will be in control. The court should not punish someone twice for the same crime, if he was already punished for the same crime.