Palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.

The Ten Commandants bit is funny, but when you think of is our rules derived from the ten Commandments and it was those implications within the Commandments that made sub rules into the laws and regulations we follow today. Our legal system is full of rules and the court has a duty to keep each citizen whether alive or deceased from harm or wrongful blame. The court are set in place to make order, they approve rules and guidelines that everyday citizens must follow. They are the ones who can enforce and remove just about anything if it has precedence to do so, the Palmer family are the ones who also have a say, they are the non-guilty party. They are the ones who didn"t take life in their own hands and played God like the defendant did. They are the ones who has to fight for what"s right, and they are the ones who are backing up the courts to make this decisions. The courts duty is to the court to protect the needs and wants of its private citizens. Palmer being deceased still has property and money and those things has a right to be protected by the court to ensure that Palmer gets his dying wishes served. In a normal world we wouldn"t even question this, someone does something to wrong to receive something, is caught and punished, they don"t still reap the rewards after their punishment. The punishment doesn"t stop at the person being charged and sent away to prison, it stops when the person don"t reap any benefit from their crime after the fact. The money, the property, those are rewards, and the guilty party is not allowed to receive a rewards for their bad deeds. When a child steals and get caught, they are punished and are not able to receive what they stolen. The defendant was committing a selfish act when he took upon himself to kill his grandfather, he didn"t even think about the rest of the family that loved him. He took advantage of a situation and he doesn"t deserve the benefits. The court is not reassigning a party to receive the defendants award the court is just removing the defendant and allowing the other deserving parties to collect. Why do they deserve to collect and reap the benefits because they did not kill their grandfather for money, they did not rob him of enjoying the rest of his life. The courts are honoring his death by not giving the money to the young man, the defendant was treacherous and deceitful, with his ill-will intentions. The OJ Simpson case comes to mind, Oj was charged with stealing his own football cards, and memorabilia, this was his own stuff and yet he was charged with stealing it, he got time and when he got out those things that he stole he could not get back. At least in this case he was charged with stealing something he had previously owned, its one thing to have something and then sell it and then want it back, but its another to never have owned it and steal it. The money and property was left in his name at the time yes, but it was not his until the testator died, had the defendant not stolen his life he could have had the opportunity to change that part in the will. People change their minds all the time, the sad truth is we will never know if the grandfather really did mean for the money and property to be left to the defendant. There are so many things that could have changed this, his actions, mood swings, or just change of mind. People have the right to change their minds and the defendant stole that right. We don"t know if it was set in stone that the defendant was going to receive that money, anything could have changed this, but causing Palmer to die altered his fate, made it set. Like a criminal that doesn"t get rewarded when they get out of prison, and lose certain right the defendant lost his. He lost the right to the money that may or may not have been his, his lost his family and he has to start over or resume with what he had before he was ever in the will. 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) The statutes are already in play, when we look at the insurance case we can plainly see that a person who kills someone for an insurance claim is not entitled to the money.