Riggs v Palmer

1) To summarize, our main point of disagreement hinge on whether or not Palmer should receive the inheritance left for him in his grandfather"s will -- a man that he willfully murdered, so as to expedite the activation of the will itself, so as to more swiftly enjoy the benefits that said inheritance would provide. 2) Our secondary points of disagreement hinge on whether or not we should use such things as rational interpretation and equitable construction to expand or minimize the statutes of wills, and therefore, either include or exclude Palmer from obtaining the inheritance left in his name; this ties into whether or not we should use a more or less literal interpretation of the law, in other words, the "spirit" of the law, or the "letter" of it. 3) It"s very much true that once a will is in effect, and the testator has either passed on or cannot, for whatever reason, be present, then that will cannot be altered in any shape, way, or form; it must stay true to its original words. 4) Rational interpretation does not involve altering or rewriting a will in any shape, way, or form, however; rather, it involves interpreting the law in such a way that a unique set of facts specific to a single case may either be included or excluded in a statute, though it has not been explicitly stated. 5) Furthermore, rational interpretation is beneficial to us -- especially in the case at hand -- because it allows for the court to include and provide fair judgments for cases that are not specifically stated in the letter of the law; simply because making the law (or the statutes) too specific would leave room for men skilled in the area of law (such as lawyers) to find and create loopholes in their cases, contracts, and et cetera. 6) In other words, rather than use a literal interpretation of the law in cases like the one at hand, we should make our decisions "in the spirit" of the law, because it allows us to make our best judgments and act according to the principles set up by the law. 7) I still firmly stand by the fact that allowing Mr. Palmer to inherit what was left to him by his grandfather in his will, despite the fact that he murdered his grandfather so as to activate the will faster and reap the benefits of what was left to him more quickly, would be akin to rewarding him for his crime, despite the fact that the law would have already punished him for murder. 8) If he were to be allowed to collect his inheritance, he would feel no remorse for his actions, which directly negates the purpose of his punishment in the first place; because he killed in order to activate the will, and, should he be allowed to collect he will have gained exactly what it was he set out to gain when he killed the testator. 9) This in itself is a form of injustice, and therefore should not be tolerated; because to reward anyone for murder, even if they were rightfully and legally named in a will, is bad. 10) Thus, as I have said in my prior arguments, the only way to truly serve justice is to expand the law so that Mr. Palmer is declined the ability to receive the inheritance that his grandfather, the testator, had left for him. 11) The main argument against this, as you have stated, is that doing this would be akin to subjecting the defendant to "cruel and unusual punishment", or "excessive punishment" -- thus, you say, he should be allowed to reap the benefits of the will. 12) But, as I feel I have at least adequately shown, this is simply not so; for one, the criminal and civil law are not intertwined, so there would not be excessive punishment on behalf of the criminal law, as they only charged him with murder, and nothing more; and for another, allowing him to reap the benefits of the will he was named in would contradict entirely the moral code that the legal system has put in place for us, the people, through its laws and statutes. 13) Even further than that, if we were to follow the rule of rational interpretation, justice would be upheld, both for the deceased, and the deceased's family -- because Palmer would not be allowed to profit from a death that he, in his greed, willfully caused. 14) And, as stated in my prior argument, allowing justice for the deceased and his family is good; the same can be said for not allowing a man to benefit from his own greed. 15) There are negative consequences to declining Palmer his inheritance, the majority of which you have pointed out and elaborated on in your own argument, but in light of the benefits that I have listed in my own argument, these negative consequences are acceptable. 16) Therefore, I sustain my initial conclusion: that Palmer should not be allowed his inheritance.