Riggs v Palmer Case

Pro Argues #14 "The court is bound by already existing rules not appeal to conscience" It is true that the court is bound by already existing rules and, "Law lists the ways in which a will can be altered."(517.3.8) However, "There's no written law in making a will that says you can't get the estate if you murder, and when there's no such law courts can't make changes to wills." (517.1.2) At the time of the murder Elmer committed it was noted that there was no existing rule or law banning a murderer from getting an estate in a will. There did not need to be a create rule or law banning such an action. Yes there was no existing rule because no case has had these particular facts to it. The court took into account what on what was the current state on these issue and if a reasonable man would consider this to be fair. In no civil society is murder acceptable, why should murder for be acceptable? Under those conditions it would be accepted to kill someone that you know will be getting you a Christmas gift, in order to obtain it at a faster rate. Pro Argues #10 "The court on many occasions have changed their minds widening the scope of a particular set of laws....It may not be written that if the owner of the will is killed by one of the correspondent"... The court has used this case as a way to create precedent." (Levi and Lewellyn 11.2-12.1) "In case law there is no statue the judge is not bound by the rule of law made by prior judges." They can accept and broaden an existing law set by RELEVANT precedent cases, to use what the intent of the lawmakers were and cover other cases, as much as they can also choose to REJECT the prior judge's ruling on a case if not enough similarities emerge to extend the rule. Based on your argument #12 "If both a will and life insurance are payable on death why should a murderer be permitted to receive one of these benefits if the court has already denied the other", that one similar condition does not produce enough similarities to extend the rule. Yes and in this particular the rejected the idea of allowing a murder the right to obtain property, that would had been his but he choice to violated criminal law. All courts tend to follow previous court decisions, if one can see similarities between the cases. As shown in civil right cases after Brown vs Board of Education, only in extreme cases where the law was a violation of a person constitutional rights, would the courts even consider changing the pervious precedent that had been set. In this particular case Wills and life insurance are similar enough for the court to deny the request for benefits. If you do not consider it an extension of the rule, consider it creating a brand new standard. I was not contending that it would be double jeopardy as you stated. I'm defending his 8th amendment right against the courts use of excessive punishment. The Law explicitly lists, for everyone convicted of 2nd degree murder, the amount of time they owe the state. The courts cannot alter the punishment for a particular person and exceed such. He has already been tried, convicted and is serving prison time for 2nd degree murder stemming from the murder of Francis Palmer which is exactly the punishment carried by law for committing second degree murder. Anything in addition to what the law permits would be excessive and discriminatory on the courts part towards Elmer. Yes in criminal law that is all that is permitted to occur to him, however he could also be trailed in civil court and it not be considered double jeopardy. He has not been given any excessive or inhumane punishment, he is serving time in jail for the crime he will fully committed and he was not permitted to enjoy the benefits for the crime he had committed. If it helps you, consider it a seizure of property which he once had right to and he had lost that privilege with his actions. Also not only is your claim subjective it excludes and assumes the mass of religious people aren't reasonable. According to Wiki as of 2008 73% of people in the United States identify themselves as Christians, in addition to the many other religions Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Yogi that all believe in forgiveness. Forgiveness pardons, exonerates, grants mercy, clemency and absolution for wrong-doing done unto them. Based on the basic foundation of forgiveness which all of these religious groups are built on I can conclude that the teachings of such religions would want a person to pardon Elmer for his act. I stand firm in my belief that Elmer should get the property because, "The way the court is trying to alter the will in Elmers case is not one written by law." (517.3.10) The reasonable man is a standard which ALL courts use to evaluate each case. If you are attempting to claim that all courts in the United States is subjective, good luck. However in this case the standard was used to establish that a crime used to benefit financial would not be permitted. When a drug is trialed and convicted, his property is also seizure due to him using an illegal way to obtain the property. As well you have no way of knowing if the grandfather would had changed his mind throughout the course of his life. Preventing his grandfather from revoking his inheritance under the will which he had shown some intention in doing so prior to the murder (506.1.4), He had previously shown some intention of removing the grandson from the well. Nowhere in my argument states religion being a condition to exclude someone from being considered a reasonable man. But yes all those religions practice those techniques however the United States government has no established religion therefore it is not required to practice any of those techniques.