Riggs v. Palmer: Disallowing inheritance of will

Although I do agree with your point on morals and the law, I would have to divert your attention and explain the significance contained in their relationship. Lord Devlin, in Morals and the Criminal Law, explains criminal law is based upon moral principle. In a number of crimes the law functions simply to enforce a moral principle and nothing else. The law, both criminal and civil, is able to speak about morality and immorality. However, it is definitely reasonable to think of their relationship and immediately disprove that thought. The structure of every society is made up both of politics and morals. Take, for example, the institution of marriage. Whether a man should be allowed to take more than one wife is something about which every society has to make up its mind one way or the other. Politics and morals comprise society and ensure its survival. With these two elements understood, society cannot exist without morals. Laws prohibiting crime, like Elmer"s act of murder, are placed in society so that there is a sense of security and moral values in place. When people are secure with proper morals, a more stable and just society is in order. Furthermore, the morals behind such acts tell us that they are unjustified and should not be considered. Aside from the legal language, the judge"s decision in this case was based on a public policy principle, analogous to morals in society. Universal maxims in society dictate that one is not rewarded for his/her crimes. Universal maxims are superior to any statute and are understood to the international community. You have to look at this on a case-by-case approach. You are right, the court should not interfere and "play daddy" in every circumstance. But in special circumstances, like in the case at hand, the court does not have an option. The court was extremely pressured to act in this case because this would be establishing the first legal precedent of its kind. What will future courts say and how will they follow this justification? Since there will be a record in place of the standard used by the court, then future courts will have no trouble following. The court is working off of revolutionary ideas in international law. They are applying strong reasoning to justify their claims and are all valid. A will, under trust and estate laws, is like a contract and when things aren"t made explicit in the will, it is a serious problem for the court. If something is not explicit and is ambiguous, the court will alter will and enter new conditions. This is a form of paternalism. The court is allowed to be "daddy-like" and modify wills under special circumstances. We have to draw a line and have to determine how much a Court is looking to go into a person"s decision. This, as Justice Earl points out, is use of rational interpretation by the court. The court is allowed to make certain modifications to a will under special circumstances. Since Elmer murdered his grandfather in a convenient fashion so as to expedite his inheritance, we cannot conclusively agree that Francis thought of this pre-meditated plan before he died. I am not countering the fact that wills are genuine documents. They are, but to an extent. By committing the crime, Elmer made the will speak and operate in his opportunistic favor. Is he allowed to gain from his act? It is clear that if he had met up with Francis and took his property by force, there would be no title granted, that is clear and cut. As the court said in its decision, you cannot benefit from the fruit of your crime. The law simply does not entertain that idea because you are allowing the murderer to think it"s fine and so it will serve opposite to deter crime in the future. People will think it"s fine and will kill to inherit. Lawmakers who pass laws do not always draft up their intentions with perfection, allowing judges to conjecture probable or rational thoughts " rational interpretation. As Rutherford said, "Where we make use of rational interpretation, sometimes we restrain the meaning of the writer so as to take in less, and sometimes we extend or enlarge his meaning so as to take in more than his words express." This construction of the statute by the judges must take into account the intention of the lawmakers at the time of drafting and must hold the case to be within the equity of the statute, because lawmakers could not feasibly set down every case in express and clear terms. To put this into perspective, we look at a statute created in Bologna, where whoever drew blood on the streets would face severe consequences. However, the Courts held it to not apply to the case of a barber who opened a vein in the street. Similarly, it is said that no work is permitted on the Sabbath, but with a rational interpretation of the law, we find that we are not forbidden to do work that are focused on necessity, charity, or kindness on the day. If we believe that the legislative intent in this case accepts and allows the murder of a testator for the sole purpose of benefitting on a will, then that is an irrational interpretation of the law and is wholeheartedly unreasonable. Therefore, the language of the law is not a matter of consideration anymore.