Riggs V's Palmer

(1.)The defendant killed the testator who was the owner of the property and hurt his chances of getting the property himself from the will. (3.)The question is whether the court can alter or change the will even if the one who wrote the will is dead and the one who deserves to get his rewards from the will outlived the testator. (4.)There are strict laws that deal with how a will should be executed and it should be the same not altered. (5.)In Roman law, the person who committed a crime was simply punished for the crime he committed.(6.)The rewards that an individual deserved was given to the person even if there was a crime committed. (7.)There are many statutes that say how a will can be altered and changed but the way in which the testator was murdered by the defendant who was supposed to receive his rewards from the will is not on any statute saying that the will can be altered or changed based on this. (8.)There is a statute that says that a will that has been written shall not be altered or revoked except for the prior cases or criteria that were mentioned in the other section of the statute. (9.)In a case called Goodright vs Glasier a judge had said that if a man lets his will stand till he dies then the will is his however if he lets it suffer to do so, than it is not his will. (11.) There is not sufficient support of any argument or case that can defend the notion of not giving the rewards from a will to the person who deserves his earnings because of a criminal act that was committed by the person who receiving his rewards. (12.)The argument against the defendant is that the defendant has committed a crime and is being deprived of his property that he should be getting from the will due the crime he has committed. (14.)The court is basically making a new will. (15.)The laws do not support the courts making new wills people and this case does not support it either. (16.)Taking away the property from the defendant is adding another punishment to the defendant. (17.)The court does not have the power to add on more punishment to the defendant"s punishment that was already given. (18.)Therefore, Palmer should receive his inheritance from the will. - The criminal also known as the defendant is not being rewarded for the crime that he committed. The defendant is just simply being rewarded or given what he was supposed to given whenever his grandfather was deceased. The legal document of the will gave him that right and therefore he should be able to be given his property. - The real question of this court case is not whether or not the defendant is being rewarded his inheritance or not. The question of this case is whether the original will that was given before the death of the grandfather is going to be altered or changed. - The will cannot be altered or chnaged due to the simple fact that the will is the wishes that the deceased person wanted to be accomplished because it is his belongings and how he chose to distribute them to the people that he wanted to give them to. - That poses another problem because what happens if the court gives the property to a person that the grandfather would have not wanted or does not like? Now the court is not just changing or altering the will, now the court is going against the will because it is instead giving it to a person that it would have not been given to if the uncle were to alter or change the will himself. - The court cannot just assume the scenarios of "what-if?" because we are not sure whether or not that would have even happen and so that is not a valid to prove that the property should be taken away from the defendant. - Taking the property away from the defendant is like punishing the defendant twice for one action that was committed. the defendant is obviously going to get a criminal punishment and sentencing for killing his grandfather for his inheritance from the will. However that does not mean that he should get another punishment on top of that by his inheritance being taken away. The defendant should get his inheritance.