Riggs v Palmer

1) To take the law and then expand upon it, or even minimize its effects, is not akin to taking the law out of context; because the cases to which such a tactic is applied are cases that would indeed fit within the context and the letter of the law, but were not explicitly written down. 2) And, once again, these cases were not explicitly written down because they simply could not be, for reasons that I explained prior. 3) So while it is true that our laws state that a legal beneficiary of a will should be able to enjoy what has been left to him or her in said document, should they be named, after the testator of said document has passed -- we cannot say with certainty that a case's specific circumstances would fit within the context of this law until we examine it fully. 4) I will admit that there are undertones of morality to my argument, but it could also be argued that the enforcement of laws and the writing of statutes are acts that are done with an air of morality about them, as well; because in writing and enforcing its laws, no matter if these laws are civil or criminal laws, the state seeks to enforce and reinforce its own brand of morals -- that is, things that we, subjects of the state, should and should not do. 5) Keeping this in mind, if the state truly sought to enforce its own brand of morals, to say that it would allow for a man who murdered another to reap the gains of a document that he would have gained in time is somewhat contradictory. 6) I agree that indicting Palmer in a court of law, and punishing him for orchestrating the untimely murder of his grandfather, the testator, is in itself one way to bring justice down upon him for breaking the law. 7) But, at the same time, to allow Palmer, a man who incited chaos out of impatience and greed, to then collect his inheritance after being punished for the way in which he collected said inheritance, negates the effects of the initial punishment entirely. 8) After all, in the end, whether he receives the proper punishment for murder or not -- he manages to obtain what he set out to obtain in the first place by murdering his grandfather, and that is all that was left to him in his will. 9) To this end, the punishment becomes lackluster, and without any significant meaning; because while he has been indicted for murder, he also reaps the gains of his will, which was the reason he'd committed murder in the first place. 10) Therefore, I ask: is there any point at all in punishing him for murder, if you are not also going to justly repeal what he had committed murder for? 11) And I say 'justly', because declining him the ability to reap the benefits of the will in which he was named could be done in a justified manner; by interpreting the statutes and the intentions of the lawmakers, for one, and by appealing to the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law, for another. 12) Above all else, the state (and to this end, lawmakers themselves) strives for a society in which there is justice for all; in which there is a sort of harmony, not chaos. 13) In my honest opinion, and contrary to yours, to allow Palmer to inherit what was left to him by his grandfather, despite punishing him to the fullest extent for murdering him, would not be upholding justice, but injustice. 14) I would also think that it is very clear that appealing to the spirit of the law, rather than the word of the law, is optimal when attempting to decide on the ruling for a case; but therein lies the heart of our disagreement. 15) We cannot abide only by the letter of the law, because the letter of the law only provides so much for us, in regards to punishment guidelines: who to punish, when to punish, and why. 16) Were we only to abide by the letter of the law, countless cases of injustice would ensue; because a literal interpretation, rather than one in the "spirit" of the law, would likely allow people of more unique cases and fact patterns to go free and without punishment, simply because there would be no written guidelines on how to deal with those specific cases. 17) It's much like the case of Mr. Palmer, though this has to do more with the statutes of wills, and not so much his punishment -- for, as you've already stated, the court has already punished him to the fullest extent of the law for his crime. 18) But his crime of committing murder, and upholding the legitimacy of a will -- and, furthermore, making sure that the will is enacted in a legitimate way -- are not one and the same; rather, they are two separate things, governed by two separate sets of laws (ie., the statutes of wills don't apply to criminal law because they are a part of common law, and vice versa). 19) Therefore, it is not entirely correct to say that one is imposing "additional" or "excessive" punishment upon Palmer for interpreting the statutes in such a way that he would not gain his inheritance. 20) The criminal law will have, at this point, already done its job in punishing him for the crime of murder. It is the job of the common law, then, to ensure that the handling of the will, in the aftermath of the event that led to its activation, is proper; and that the will, remaining unchanged (because, as you stated prior, a will cannot be altered after the passing of its testator), is executed correctly in the eyes of the law. 21) In other words, the court would not be punishing Palmer further by redacting his inheritance via statute interpretation; it would simply be making sure that the will in question is enforced in such a way that could be considered legitimate. 22) Allowing for a murderer, as statute interpretation would find, to gain what was left to him in the wake of a death he willfully caused is not what one would find "legitimate" to be. 23) Therefore, and to this end, I disagree with your last statement: that the only way that the will could be carried out in a legitimate manner would be to allow Palmer to remain legal beneficiary of the will without any alteration and/or revocation made to the will.