Riggs v. Palmer: Disallowing inheritance of will

I would like to flip the first paragraph on you and ask you, what if the murderer, Elmer, would not survive Francis and would"ve died before him? There was no certainty that Francis would not disinherit Elmer from his will and Elmer wouldn"t have this property if nature took its course. Elmer took matters into his own hands and turned all uncertainty into reality. Just before the murder he was not an inheritor, and there was absolutely no certainty that he would ever be, based on the mentioned facts. So, how is he allowed to privilege off of his crime? With respect to your second paragraph, we are looking at Elmer"s reward with respect to the estate. Had the court not intervened, Elmer would"ve stepped away from the murder and benefited from the fruit of his crime. You consider that acceptable? Of course he wouldn"t be rewarded, the 16-year-old delinquent just killed someone. We are considered this reward with the property at stake for Elmer. He is a delusional young kid that wanted something fast, just like every other young teen that wants their stuff fast and cheap. Elmer did, and I repeat did, have clear intentions of killing his grandfather, so this whole argument on "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" Should be dismissed. Elmer wouldn"t have died before his grandfather because Elmer knew of the provisions made in his favor. In addition, his grandfather had intention of revoking the provision, which may have scared Elmer. Therefore, Elmer decided to kill him and obtain speedy enjoyment and immediate possession of the property. By granting Elmer the inheritance after the murder, you are allowing a murder + reward. Despite being convicted, he got what he intended to get and when he gets out he will be enjoying the benefits. You may argue that Palmer is being punished further by not being granted his inheritance. That should immediately be dismissed. The court is essentially taking away something that was never in the possession of the defendant. It is not an additional punishment if the defendant does not get what is intended to him. It is the full right of the courts to act. What we are doing in this case is trying to serve justice and establish a precedent. The facts are clear, a grandson murdered his grandfather to operate a will and make it speak in his opportunistic favor. If we allow Elmer to profit from his behavior, then what are we showing to the world? Will this be considered the new norm, to kill and still be secure with the entitlements of a will? This is exactly why the Court is putting its foot down and reasoning all of this through the tenets of universal maxims! The founding fathers of our constitution intended for the courts to use judicial review in determining a case. This is their role in society, their job. They are required to take a case and determine whether something is constitutional or not. Similarly, in our case, the court is looking to determine if an act committed is allowed under the common law system of inheritance, i.e. slayer rule. If they don"t step in, then who will deter this from ever occurring again? There was no existing law at the time of the case, as everything was silent on this issue. This was the first time a case like this was brought up. Legal Philosopher Ronald Dworkin, in The Concept of Law, explains the legal process and shows how Riggs is pure example of it. There are decisions, like Riggs, that occupy the uncertainty of legal rules, where the direction of the legal rule is unclear. In these cases, judges must decide which of the possible applications of the legal rules are best social policy and then apply the rule, which is best. You mention laws and, in explaining your thoughts, you claim that there are "laws set in place to decide such things." In essence, what you are claiming is that there are no laws in the majority or dissenting opinions. In Taking Rights Seriously, Dworkin proves that principles are also a component of law. These principles are sufficient to modify statute. Legal principles are used in the majority and dissenting opinions, "one cannot benefit from one's own wrongdoing" in the case of the majority and "one should not be punished beyond the ways specified in the statute" in the case of the dissent. Therefore, it is apparent that these legal principles are transferable to laws. They are cemented in jurisdiction, as well as laws. You have to understand that if the court were to look at every case, it would be overwhelmed and congested. The court does not seek to do this. This would take a lot of time, effort and money. Just like regular human beings, the courts want to prevent this. It would be too much to have the court intervene each time a will is problematic. Our personal liberties would also be contested when our wills are constantly subject to the judgment of the court. When a will is problematic, the court must be able to address it and decide how best to serve it justice. That is the role of the court, and when I say paternalism, I mean it in the strictest sense. The court is not looking to corroborate or assume certain facts. What the court is aiming at is whether Francis was prepared for his grandson"s deceitful behavior. He was not expecting this at all. This is unfairness in its greatest degree. Just like with unconscionability, you cannot determine or foresee what is unfair. The courts define that and provide standard of unfairness. Similarly, in our case, a will does not contain issues of unfairness and what is to occur in those specific tragic life events. We leave this up to the judge to assess, and to look at the facts of the case with respect to the construction. The court is filling in the role of Francis, by assuming what Francis would have done if he knew about and would have prepared for his grandson"s cruel intentions.