Riggs Debate

1.On August 13th, 1880 Francis B. Palmer finished writing his will, in which is states that once he passes away he will be giving two small estates two his two daughters and the rest to his grandson Elmer Palmer. 2. 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. 3.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. 4.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, even if it means there is no statute that allows this to happen. 5.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. 6.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 would not be such a frequent situation that it needs a statute to protect it. 7.The courts should not be allowed to make decisions on cases based on moral standards when there is a number of different statutes and laws that clearly do not protect the law from revoking and/or altering Mr. Palmer's will. 8.By allowing this decision to occur we are accepting the fact that the courts should ignore the laws that are presented. 9.Revoking the will and eliminating Palmer to receive the estate, would only add a more significant punishment, which is not permitted without a statute. 10.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. 11.I do agree Mr. Elmer Palmer should not be rewarded for his actions however, this does not allow for the courts to disregard the law. 12.Elmer Palmer is receiving the appropriate punishment that he deserves. 13.This case should be inspiring to the law makers that we need a statute that protects the courts to alter or revoke a will with such a situation. 14.Therefore, The will should not be altered or voided due to the fact that there is no statute that allows the courts to do so. Elmer Palmer is receive the punishment that the law allows for him to receive. Judges should not be forget the laws that were past, and make their own judgements on this case. Yes, no person should receive a reward for their bad actions. And while yes Elmer Palmer should not receive the estate because of his actions, not following the appropriate statute and laws that the law makers have passed is not the way to go. This case will be a precedent case for all the ones that will be coming after. We cannot allow for this to be a precedent case, a case where decision are made on moral standards instead of straight forward laws and statutes. We should see this case as a way to allow our law makers to build upon this and make new laws that protects the judges and courts from altering and revoking a will when the heir is murdered. I do believe that the law makers did not find it necessary to have such a statute or doctrine for this type of predicament, maybe because these law makers agreed that the criminal courts would take care of the punishment. However, as we can see that it might be necessary have such a statute, due to the fact that by allowing the courts to alter the law and make the decision without any typing of rule or law inspire the decision. Mr. Elmer Palmer should receive the estate and moving forward we should pass a law of where it protects the courts to revoke a will when a heir is murdered in order to get his or her estate.