Riggs v Palmer

Amina Amjed Riggs v Palmer Debate " Round 3 1.If you were to expand on the law, as you say the courts should do, by depriving the defendant of his legal property would indeed be taking the law out of context because the courts would then be expanding on his punishment for murder. Has his crime not been accounted for? 2.I agree that we cannot be certain about a case"s specific circumstances would fit within the context of this law until we examine it fully. But by examining it we have to maintain a rational state of mind rather than regarding this case with emotion and conscious standing. 3.By suggesting that defendant, Elmer Palmer, should be subjected with further penalty for his offense would be condemning him with unfair justice which would be granted by an emotional audience rather than one with sound and rational mind as the law should. 4.The law seeks to maintain justice where justice is required and nothing further. By appealing to the argument of the Plaintiff, in revoking what is granted to the Defendant by the will of the testator, could ultimately grant Plaintiff with excessive access to the will in question, which the testator had not wished for through his will. 5.It is true, that Elmer Palmer was the person who brought untimely death upon his grandfather, the testator, and there was no way of knowing that had the defendant not committed this offense, the testator may have survived Elmer Palmer. 6.It is also to be noted that although Francis Palmer, the testator, had made some remarks about changing the will to reduce or revoke the benefits that would be granted to Elmer Palmer, he had not done so before his untimely demise at the hands of his grandson. 7.I do not agree that after being allotted the punishment for murder, he should be further scrutinized. 8.It could also be said, during the time he is incarcerated for his crime, he is already unable to enjoy the property for which he had committed murder and caused untimely death of his grandfather, the testator of the will. He is incapable of attaining what he had hoped for by making the will operative before time. 9.The criminal law, in case of Riggs v. Palmer, has established punishment for the murder of the testator, Francis Palmer. 10.Furthermore, by denying Elmer Palmer his estate, adds further punishment to that which the defendant has already received under the criminal statute and that is something which the court is not allowed to do without the express, written statute. 11.The existing statutes do not authorize the action of courts to simply makeup and/or create statutes which obtain a result which is morally pleasing. 12.In accordance with the law, the testator has passed; his will was made in due form and is admitted to probate, therefore, it must go into effect according to the exact letter of the law. 13.For that reason, that the statutes regulating the making, proofing, and effect of will(s), if constructed literally, and if their effect and force can in no way be modified, the property should be granted to its legal owner, the beneficiary, Elmer Palmer. 14.This purpose of the statutes, regulating wills, is to enable the testator(s) to dispense with their estate(s) as they please, and to carry into effect the legality of their final wishes and that sole purpose must be kept in view when giving effect and operation to the will(s). 15.Because the makers of the law do not express their intentions perfectly, but either fall short or exceed it, it is left to the judges to collect from their intentions probable or rational assumption only. 16.We must abide by the letter of the law if we hope to remedy the crime and provide punishment proportional to the crime. 17.Literal interpretations are necessary to ensure that an individual is not making to suffer more or less for his/her crime. 18.The rules of the law states that any will made and or litigated with undue influence and/or by force shall be held void. In this instance, no such circumstance is available which holds the will to its word and grants all its beneficiaries what is provided to them through said will. 19.To that end, I stand by my previous point that by restricting the defendant from enjoying the property he has legally procured will be to impose additional and unfair punishment on the defendant. 20.I agree that committing murder and upholding the legitimacy of the will are not one in the same but they are tried in court under the same instance and he is tried for murder for which his punishment is justified and nothing more. 21.If the will is altered, to revoke the privileges granted to the defendant, Elmer Palmer, than the courts are taking into their own hands what was not granted to them by the legislators and in doing so they are creating what is not in their right and jurisdiction to create. 22.Reinstating my previous point, the defendant would be made without his claims to the will until he has served his punishment for the murder of his grandfather, hence, it is unnecessary to further that punishment by entirely and completely revoking form him his claims to said will.