Riggs v Palmer

Amina Amjed Debate Round 2 Riggs v Palmer 1.The intention of the lawmakers, when they inscribe the law, is quite clear through their writing unless they say so otherwise. 2.According to the law, it is the legislation that has control over how an individual may dispose of their property after their death, and how that power can be exercised. 3.In making of the will at hand, it is undisputed that the will was made without force and/or undue influence. It was made without any pressures from the beneficiaries of said will. 4.By claiming that one legitimate beneficiary of said will, after the death of the testator, should not be able to enjoy what is rightfully given to him by the testator, is a claim that has not been demonstrated through any acts anticipated by the statute. 5.Therefore, by taking the law out of context, by expanding it to an extent that an individual is victimized by it would be an unjust act towards the individual. 6.Although it is true, that law makers cannot foresee every act to be included in the statute; it is still uncertain as to what their intention of the law maker(s) was regarding the passing of a will that was made operative by the heinous act of a beneficiary named in the will. 7.If what you say is correct, regarding the flexibility of the law, then it is also true to assess that the intention of the law makers, when creating the law regarding will(s), was to allow the will to become operative, no matter under what circumstances it had become operative. By murdering the testator, and making the will operative, does not give a testimony of the legislator"s intention to withdraw the content of the will from becoming operative in the favor of Elmer Palmer. 8.It is however, undisputed that to make the law more defined, would compromise justice altogether. 9.In addition, the law provides that a provision was within the intentions of the law makers as they were writing the statute; but anything which was not in the intention of the law makers is not to be considered within the statute, even if it within the letter of the law. 10.To this end, it would not have been the intention of the law maker(s) to deprive a beneficiary from his legal claim in a will which he/she was made part of by the rational and reasonable decision of the testator. 11.There are no instances in the law at hand where the law maker(s) have suggested an altering of the will at any time after the original testator of the will has passed, and the original will was not made by undue influence or by force by a beneficiary named in the will. 12.Although it depends on the interpretation and what is perceived to be the intentions of the original lawmakers at the time, it could not have been their intention to deprive someone of what is legally theirs. 13.I agree that one only has to suppose that the corresponding lawmaker is present, and then conclude with an answer that would suit such a man as himself " "reasonable and upstanding". 14.I do not contend that Elmer Palmer should not be held responsible for the crime that he committed voluntarily. 15.I stand by the decision of the court in punishing him for his immoral, heinous act for which he was sentenced. However, I do not believe that further action need be taken towards him thereby extending his punishment. 16.Elmer Palmer did indeed hasten execution of the will by illegal means. 17.In doing so, he committed an atrocious act for which he deserves full punishment but for the crime committed and nothing further. 18.The defendant, Elmer Palmer, is already paying his debt to the law and society for murdering his grandfather, Francis Palmer, and no further punishment should be granted to him. He is already been given the punishment to the full extent of the law for committing murder, and further punishment would be beyond what the law provides. 19.Denying Elmer Palmer his rightful inheritance would most definitely be a form of further punishment. 20.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. 21.To answer your query, I do not believe it is unreasonable for one to obtain what is legally given to him/her. Though it is wrongful to obtain the contents of the will by malicious acts, and for that law should take its course. I do not however believe that by revoking Elmer Palmer"s claim to the will, justice would be upheld. 22.By claiming that the defendant should be deprived of the property left to him by the testator, you are allowing for conscious to play a role in decision make where the law does not allow for it. 23.For the law to be carried out in a justifiable way, Elmer Palmer should remain the legal beneficiary of the will without any alteration and/or revocation made to the will as it was the intention of the testator.