Palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will

Controversial: Con: Our legislation's job is to protect the rights and laws of the people but a will is a written document based on the wishes of the person writing the will. Should we allow the government to rewrite a will that is meant to follow one's wishes before they pass away? An example is the case of Owens v. Owens, the wife was able to receive her deceased husband's estate and she help commit a criminal act by helping to kill her husband in order to get the estate. Our government allowed her to receive her deceased husbands estate. Pros rebuttal: While you are correct with stating that our legislation's job is to protect the rights and laws of the people but a will is a written document based on the wishes of the person writing the will. But what would be the true wishes of Palmer if he was alive and he found out his grandson was plotting his murder. Isn"t it safe to assume that, that knowledge would make him rewrite his will? If he were already thinking about changing the will what is to say that this would not make him change it. I believe he would have because any reasonable person would. So is it hard to assume that the court would assume the same thing. While you are correct that in Owens V. Owens the wife received her dead husbands estate but if the court granted a new trial like it stated in the reading should have happened there is no saying what might have been. Con's Rebuttal: In the appellate argument the decision is not based on the crime that Elmer Palmer committed but whether he should receive his grandfather's estate. The only person that was able to revoke or change the will was the grandfather and the court should not take it upon them to decide on who gets the property of a dead man. He created a will for a reason and who should get his estate. The court's decision to give Mr. Palmer's estate between his daughter which was Elmer's mother and his widow. But what if Elmer's mother forgives him for his actions and decides to give some of his grandfather's property to him. Does that make it right? Pro"s rebuttal to Con"s Rebuttal: But how can you know that the grandfather wouldn"t change his will. He is dead because his grandson killed him. The court has the right to assume that if his grandfather were alive then he would have changed the will anyway. His grandfather already had certain provisions in his will so you know that he was suspicious of his grandson. That was the reason Palmer killed him. So that Elmer couldn"t activate these provisions. (1.1.5) Your assumption is that Elmer"s mother would forgive him for killing his grandfather her father. What you are asking is for Elmer"s mother to forgive her Elmer for killing her father. Even though the killer is her own son, I believe you are asking too much. You are making her choose between her fathers Elmer her father who did nothing wrong except leave Palmer a large inheritance and her son Palmer who wanted easy money so he kills his grandfather. Is anyone that forgiving? Does it make it right? I believe so. What right does a murderer have to a property that the person he murders has left him. Does this give the right for others to follow in Palmers footsteps and kill their relative to receive their inheritance early? That is what would happen if palmer receives the inheritance. This precedence would allow others to follow his footsteps. Answer to Cons Question#2: Pros Answers: If Palmer was still alive when Elmer murdered someone else what is to say that Elmer would still be in the will. In premise 4 of my argument you will see that the reason that Elmer murdered his grandfather was because his grandfather was already thinking about removing him from the will. This has nothing to do with the law because if Palmer was alive and Elmer murdered someone there is a very good chance that would be the final straw that would make the grandfather remove him from the will. If that happened then this case would be irrelevant because he would not be in the will. Cons Rebuttal: This is an assumption you are regarding if Palmer was alive from the attack, he would remove his grandson from his will because of what Elmer did. We can't assume that his grandfather would change his mind but we also can't assume he wouldn't either. But the courts should not be the one to decide to change a dead man's will and alter the wishes of a dead man's will. Pro"s rebuttal to Con"s Rebuttal: Is it really an assumption. It is stated in the reading that Palmer did put a provision in his will but to prevent him from revoking it he poisons his grandfather. (1.1.5) This is non controversial. What is to say that if he was alive then what is to say that Elmer wouldn't remove Palmer. Their is no saying what he would do, but you have to assume that Palmer is a reasonable men and wouldn't allow a person who wants him dead to receive any of the inheritance that would have been his. That would have been a reward and why would Palmer want to reward Elmer for killing him.