Riggs v Palmer

1) It is indisputable that a will, once drawn up, cannot be rewritten or modified in the absence of the testator, due to the testator"s passing, whether untimely or otherwise. 2) However, to say that expanding the law in this case is "ill-suited", or illegitimate, is simply not true; for expanding upon or even restricting the law to include or exclude a specific set of facts, or a specific case, does not involve modifying the original will in any shape, way, or form; on the contrary, the will remains completely in-tact, and untouched. 3) This "restricting of" and "expanding upon" the law in cases such as this one, where one would undeservedly reap the spoils of an illegal and heinous act, is a legitimate tactic, and the very core of what rational interpretation is " the courts may either expand the law to include a case that would not actually be included according to the letter of the law, or they may restrict it, so that said case would not be included at all. 4) It depends on both interpretation, and what is perceived to be the intentions of the original lawmakers at the time " not on the deconstruction and revision of the will in question. 5) Therefore, the second half of your declaration, despite the first part being indisputable, makes the entirety of Premise 2 false. 6) Furthermore, you claim that if it was truly the lawmakers" intention to deprive a man that committed a heinous act from the gains he would knowingly reap from said act, then they would have included a provision within the governing statues of wills saying so. 7) This, however, is not entirely true, seeing as how, in most cases, lawmakers cannot set down the guidelines for every case in express terms within the statutes. 8) This is somewhat because cases of a certain kind will have had yet to be tried in court at the time the statue was made, but it is mostly because of the fact that if we were to create guidelines for every single set of circumstances out there, the law would become more rigid, and less like the flexible, "gray" sort of law that we have now. 9) To make the law more rigid, more defined, would mean compromising justice altogether, because the law being a "gray" area allows for less opportunities for those with a specific skillset (lawyers, draftsmen, etc.) to find loopholes; on the other hand, defining every part of law allows such a person to be able to find loopholes, simply because everything is laid out for them. 10) This goes back to the notion of rational interpretation, but it also has to do with equitable construction " which simply means that when a case is not within the letter of the law, it can be held to be within the meaning, because its circumstances would be within the "mischief" for which the statute provides a remedy. 11) One need only suppose that the corresponding lawmaker is present, and then conclude with an answer that would suit such a man as himself " "reasonable and upstanding", considering he is a man of the law " regarding whether or not he, when writing his statute, meant to include (or exclude) a certain circumstance. 12) Thus, while you were correct when you said that provisions pertaining to Palmer"s specific set of circumstances were found nowhere within the letter of the law, specifically, within the statutes that regulate wills, you are incorrect in saying that he cannot be held accountable for his actions. 13) And, to that end, my point regarding rational interpretation " and now, equitable construction " I feel, still stands. 14) However, it is true that the will in the case at-hand was made without undue influence, as well as under rational and reasonable consciousness on the part of the testator. 15) I cannot dispute this, nor can I dispute when you say that the property would have been taken by force if the defendant, Elmer Palmer, had met with his grandfather before he died, and used some malicious method to "snatch" it away from him, as it were. 16) To this end, I can agree that the will written is, for all intents and purposes, legitimate. 17) Despite this, I simply cannot agree on the fact that it should be executed " or, at least, I cannot agree that the part which rewards Palmer all that his grandfather left him should be executed. 18) This is mostly because I fail to see how taking away what was named to go to him, in a will that he forcibly expedited the activation of by way of murder, would be akin to "punishing him twice", much less "cruel and unusual punishment". 19) Therefore, I would like to ask: Why is it that you believe this to be the case? 20) Do you not think that giving a man property that he killed to receive with haste, as opposed to letting nature take its course and gaining it in time, is unreasonable? 21) If Palmer had simply stayed the course and allowed the will to activate whenever his grandfather"s passing came, then I would see no problem with giving him what would be rightfully his. 22) But Palmer did not stay the course and allow the will to activate of its own accord; rather, he took matters into his own hands, and in his greed, killed his grandfather to expedite the activation of his will. 23) Therefore, I do indeed see a problem with giving him what was left in his name. 24) Essentially, and once again, it comes down to this: If we allow Palmer to obtain what was left in his name, after all that I"ve said on statues and on general morality, then we are rewarding a man for murdering his own grandfather out of sheer greed. 25) Rewarding this man for being greedy, and killing his grandfather in cold blood, is bad. 26) True, we will be depriving him of property that was left in his name, and true, he may perceive it to be a cruel and unusual punishment " but a) it is just not so; and b) these supposed-negative consequences are acceptable in light of the fact that we will be punishing a man for doing evil, which is just what the criminal justice system is meant to do. 27) Therefore, I still uphold my original conclusion: Palmer should not receive the inheritance left to him in the will of his grandfather " the will of a man that he willfully murdered in order to "collect" at a quicker rate.