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. 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. 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. Your claim "Any reasonable person would agree that they would not wish their property to fall into the hands of the person responsible for their death", is subjective because surely you have no way of knowing what every reasonable person would agree with. Unless you took a survey of every reasonable persons opinion in which case I would love to see the statistics. 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)