Riggs Debate

1) A sixteen-year-old boy is aware of the estate that he will be receiving from his grandfather once he passes away. Because of this knowledge, Elmer Palmer kills his grandfather by poisoning him in 1882. 2) Elmer was tried and convicted for the murder of his grandfather and was sentence to serve his time in a state reformatory. Appellant"s argument is that Elmer should not receive the estate due to his actions, killing his grandfather to receive his portion of the will. 3) The question that we have at hand is not whether or not he should receive the estate, but rather can a will be altered or revoked after the death of the testator. 4) There are a number of statutory restraints of when the courts are allowed to alter a will after the testator"s death. These statutes were thought out thoroughly by a number of lawmakers, who thought out all the important circumstances of when a will needs to either altered or revoked after the death of the testator. 5) This particular situation is not protected by these statues, the law-makers in my opinion thought that such situation would not need a statute because such situation would either not occur or it wouldn"t be such a frequent situation that it needs a statute to protect it. 6) Because there is no statute that protects such situation allowing the courts to alter the will, the courts should not make their own law in this particular case and change the will. 7) Voiding the will and eliminating Palmer to receive the estate, would only add a more significant punishment, which is not permitted without a statute. 8) Elmer Palmer is being punished by the criminal law, this should be sufficient of a punishment and by the time that Palmer is out of prison, the amount of years that he will be able to have the estate would be minimal. 9) Therefore, The will should not be altered or voided due to the fact that there is no statue that allows the courts to do so. Non- controversial: 1), 2), 4), 5), 6) Controversial: 3) This is arguable, the appellant argument could be the courts trying to be parent in this particular case rather then being a referee. Because, the courts are trying to do what is right in this case, by not giving Palmer his portion of the will, it could be argued that the courts are being very paternal in this particular case. 7) The courts need precedent cases prior to the statutes that allow them to alter the will, so that Elmer does not receive his portion. The courts cannot take matters into their own hands and decided that in particular case it is okay for them to alter the testator"s wishes after death. 8) It is agreed that Palmer does deserve to be punished, however he is already being punished by criminal law adding additional punishment, will only raise the question when it is enough punishment? Palmer would be receiving double the double for killing his grandfather. 9) Allowing Elmer to receive the estate, does not mean that he will be getting the enjoyment of it. He will be sentenced to prison for a number of years, Elmer will not be able to do anything with the estate. Therefore, giving or giving the estate to Elmer would not make a difference. The enjoyment would be minimal.