Riggs v. Palmer: Disallowing inheritance of will

You fail to consider what the statutes regarding wills actually say (e.g., revocation). Francis Palmer only manifested intention to revoke Elmer"s provisions in the will, he never acted on them. Yes, he did not act on them because he was murdered by Elmer, but if nature was allowed to take its course, there is no saying that Francis Palmer would not have changed his mind to not revoke the provisions in favor of Elmer. Therefore, there is no saying what Palmer would have done and for the court to make a presumption on that is wrong and not in their judicial action. Courts should not be allowed to have a paternalism over wills. Wills are not a contract between the testator and the government, therefore, a court should not make presumptions as to who can and cannot receive benefits that are rightfully theirs. Besides, it is not in their duties to do so. You also bring up the issue that one should not be punished for a crime that they commit. I agree that one should not be rewarded for a crime they commit, but Elmer is not being rewarded for anything. He did not win anything by killing his grandfather. For starters, he will be in prison for his crime, which is a punishment not a reward. I do not see the will as a reward, I see it as his rightful possession. If he did not commit the murder, there is still reason to believe that he would have received his grandfather"s property, had he died before him. The majority courts opinion is mere speculation about what is morally right. But, there are laws set in place to decide such things. After all, the law is the law. If the law-makers did not want a donee who murdered their benefactor to receive their rightful inheritance, then they should have made that clear in their intentions. Yes, there are certain circumstances that one cannot foresee, but this is not one of them. With such delicate and profitable situations, it should have been foreseen that a donee would try to receive their benefits ahead of time. For example, if a grandfather leaves his total inheritance to his druggy grandson and his grandson ends up getting into some money trouble, couldn"t one reasonably assume that he grandson might consider murdering his grandfather for the money? Drug users, as well as most people, will do whatever it takes to make a profit. You also mention that wills are subject to trust between the donee and testator. I do not see how this can be relevant as to whether or not a donee who killed the testator should receive their rightful possessions. If the Francis Palmer did not trust his grandson, then he would never have placed him in his will in the first place. This case has nothing to do with trusts between families and the courts have no right in discussing such trust. The only trust that needs to be recognized is between a testator and the courts. A testator trusts the courts and his/her lawyer to carry out their will as stated. If the testator would have changed his mind completely as to what provisions they wanted in the will, then they would act on it. Therefore, if Palmer really intended to change the provisions regarding Elmer, then he would have actually acted. Revocation needs to be acted on, not just thought of in order to alter a will. A court should not have the power to make assumptions regarding a testator"s wishes. What is the point of a testator making wills beforehand, if a court can just come in and modify it or make presumptions about it? Why should a court be allowed to act with paternalism over issues that do not concern them? If it is so rationale for a court to rule that a murderer should not receive their benefits in a will, then why was it not rationale for law-makers to include such provisions in the statutes beforehand? This is not a matter of conscience, it is a matter of law. Yes, if this was a matter of conscience, then it can easily be agreed that Elmer should not receive the property in his grandfather"s will. But, this is a matter of law, and the law only talks about revocations. So, since Palmer never revoked his will, then the will should be carried out with the way he wished for it to be.