Can a Murderer Inherit? Riggs v. Palmer

[VideCorSpoon]

This is the first a quite a few case studies that I want to open up to the membership of the pre-law club. These are real cases (including Riggs v. Palmer) that have had a significant impact on legal philosophy and practice. I hope that even those who are not interested in pursuing the legal profession will consider joining the club to take part in the discussions. However, being that it is a pre-law club, I want to emphasize that comments and so on should be directed at the legal and philosophical implications of the case. To all members of the club, please feel free to post your own cases and analyzes for discussion if you want... or even just the case and a question. It should be fun!

If you wish to join the club and contribute, just click on the link to the groups main page

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum...law-group.html

then, scroll down below the social group messages and click on "join group" and you are set!


This case is a very interesting one. The summary says it all, but suffice to say there are some major implications in the judgments of both Judges (Earl and Grey). I would love to hear any and all opinions of not only my summary (which is from way way back in my undergraduate career studying legal philosophy and some of the deeper contexts, like double jeopardy and so on.

This is a link to the official case on the court reporter.

Riggs v Palmer


Can a Murderer Inherit : The case of Riggs v. Palmer w/ commentary by VideCorSpoon

In the case of Riggs v. Palmer, Judge Earl provides various reasons why Elmer E. Palmer should not inherit from his father, who he had incidentally poisoned and killed. It would be the wish of the defendant, Elmer Palmer, to collect his so-called rightful inheritance on the grounds that the will and testament his father had made had made it clear that in the event of his death, the various parcels of his father (Francis’) estate would be Elmer’s. However, Judge Earl does not believe that Earl Palmer should collect because he had done his father harm of death, and that by doing this, he had forfeited his right to collect the inheritance.

Judge Earl brings to point that although lawmakers had created laws to make sure property reached the beneficiaries from the deceased benefactor, lawmakers did not intend, however, for the beneficiaries to kill the benefactor and to collect the inheritance and not have it given to them as was intended. Judge Earl, recognizing that lawmakers either exceed or fall short of a specific law’s provisions of such acts, he must add new provisions to it to suit the case, staying true to the form of the law. Judge Earl states that,

“…the legislative intention in the general laws passed for an orderly, peaceable, and just devolution of property that they should have operation in favor of one who murdered his ancestor that he might speedily come into the possession of his estate of his estate.” (Riggs, 87-88)

Judge Earl does not agree that Earl Palmer should receive inheritance, based purely on the fact that he would receive a reward from ill gotten gains. Had Earl Palmer coerced his father by any other means to relinquish the inheritance to him, he would not have received it at all. Judge Earl, questioning gain from crime, decides against the defendant.

Judge Grey believes that Earl Palmer should receive his inheritance because not allowing it to him would be an unfit punishment. To Judge Grey,”…the matter does not lie within the domain of conscience.”(Riggs, 88) Law, as Judge Grey would see it, is written in stone, and as such cannot be mended or bended. The terms of the contract between Earl and Francis Palmer must be upheld because if things went the way Judge earl would have it, the court would be making another will and testament different from those of the original drafter, Francis Palmer. It is not the fact that Earl Palmer was in the right to collect his inheritance in this way, in fact the courts have reprimanded him, but the will of the deceased would not be his will at all, but that of the courts. Further, taking the property of the Earl Palmer, punished for his crime, would be above and beyond the punishment deemed fair. The crime, although linked to the benefit, should not result in the loss of the benefit to the criminal on the grounds that murder and inheritance are separate.

Judges Earl and Grey (…while a good tea, don’t mix well together in this case!) differ in statutory interpretation. To Judge Earl, the interpretation of the law is unclear in the matter that the law, although applying to the case, does so vaguely, either exceeding or falling short of intention. Judge Earl would say that; a will exists, but the gain for a benefactor was ill gotten; there is no provision for this type of violation in the law; we must therefore make a new provision to suit. It was wrong for the Earl Palmer to kill his father to receive his inheritance in this fashion, let him be punished because the crime was committed because of the inheritance. Judge Grey however follows that; a will exists; the crime committed, he will be punished for the crime of murder; Earl Palmer should not be further punished because to do so would be beyond what is required because he is guilty of murder, and having received his punishment, should not have his punishment compounded further.

So what are your thoughts on the matter? Can a murderer like Palmer really inherit his fathers fortune even though he killed him to get it?

[Watchy]

Palmer may not have made the best choice but he should be able to inherit what is rightly his. He has a right to this and if proved of murder should serve out his sentence with the money and all other assets held by his bank or the court until his release, if ever provided with probation or serves out his sentence. Also, I would prefer to carry this discussion, if you wish to discuss, out in the chat, if you don't mind.

I'm basically saying I see no grounds for the nullification of the will. It's not as if the will is keeping him from serving any sentence he recieves for murdering his father.

[VideCorSpoon]

And I think that a great many lawyers would fully agree with you … though I don’t suppose that many ordinary people would.
When I studied this case in school, the instructor made it clear that the moral of the story (well, really the reason why we pay attention to its precedence) is because it differentiates two types of law that we can live by. On the one hand we can have a “naturalistic” approach to the law, or we can have a “positivistic” approach to the law.

In the case of Riggs v. Palmer, Judge Earl plays the part of the naturalist. A legal naturalist is one who takes the law into consideration, but will go beyond the written form of law to punish offenders who he/she feels really deserves special consideration. A naturalist allows emotions to also influence the decision of a case beyond what the law would stipulate is appropriate punishment.

Conversely, Judge Grey plays the part of the positivist. A legal positivist is one who takes the law into consideration and nothing else… just the law. Even though he believes that a crime may be heinous or ill gotten as in the case of Riggs v. Palmer, he/she cannot go beyond the rules written down in the law.

You comment puts you on par with Judge Grey and the positivistic approach to the law. I in many ways share your opinions and your beliefs in this respect.

So I guess that takes us to the big question… is it better to be a legal positivist who factors emotions into the equation or a legal positivist who completely removes emotions from the equation?

[William]

The letter of the law and what is right. I think the letter of law and the emphasis we put on that is the foundation for a lot of wrong decisions. Since the law is that strict, someone makes a killing on the issuing of law books citing precedents out the kazoo. It one has the time virtually any precedent can be found that will set the most heinous villain free. Such as the case we are looking at here.

Please forgive me for my legal expertise is extremely limited, but in this case I have a hard time understanding how allowing this man to still retain his inheritance makes any sense at all. This is premeditated murder coupled with a horrific example of pure greed. If Grey’s decision is upheld it "literally" says it is ok to commit pre-meditated murder to get what you want. Granted, legally, that inheritance was Palmer’s as long as the will remained unchanged. As long as the Father was alive, that inheritance is not etched in stone and could have been changed at any time as long as the Father was alive. In that respect, whether or not it was Palmer’s property cannot be etched in stone. Only the death of the Father could have insured that. Which is what Palmer did. He removed all doubt.

The only extenuating circumstance that would have any merit would be Palmer’s desire for his family to have the money for that is who would benefit, not Palmer himself. I am sure Palmer did not expect to get caught and if he did, knowing this "letter of the law" would have only given him more justification to commit the act considering his family would benefit even if he didn’t. Furthermore, depending on the amount of the inheritance, he could use it to use the law to get free of his incarceration. Not only that the extenuating circumstances this would have on his immediate family, considering how they were "blessed" with this money would have on their regard for the law. " Blood Money" rings a bell.

As far as double jeopardy, it shouldn’t apply in any aspect what so ever in that the whole purpose of the law is remove those motivations that would initiate wrong doing in the first place. By issuing the inheritance totally null and void would do just that for that "should" be the penalty along with what every sentencing it awarded for such a horrendous act.
William

[Didymos Thomas]

When party A is the beneficiary of a life insurance policy on party B, and party A kills party B in order to collect said insurance, isn't that an example of fraud? In such cases, isn't party A not only pursued for murder, but also, pending a conviction, denied the insurance money?

[William]

An observation. In my opinion, of course, my conclusion was right on the mark here. Ha. If there are any of you who are versed in the law, I need your help. In this particular case, it was a simple decision for me to arrive at the conclusion i did. To me, it was quite simply obvious. What concerns me is for a particular "Judge" it was not. I tried to make some since of Grey's decision and found it hard to understand in that it seemed he was "grasping at straws" to follow the letter of the law totally ingnoring any common sense whatsoever. Is this a common occurrence in court proceedings? I mean does precedence and maintaining the law is perfect and cannot be challanged common. To me, honestly, after trying to make sense of Grey's reasoning, I considered Grey to be on the "take".
As I have said I am by no means versed in the law, but this intrigued me. Thanks for any information you might be able to pass on.
William

[William]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

So I guess that takes us to the big question… is it better to be a legal positivist who factors emotions into the equation or a legal positivist who completely removes emotions from the equation?

I have an idea. let's burn all law books and start over and use a little more common sense and reasoning. If a man is to be a "Judge", his qualifications should go beyond his ability to search for a precedent. Any goofball that can read can do that. Of course we do have a little quirk in our legal system that says in so many words, even if one is guilty as hell, do all in your power to get him acquitted. That's exactly what law books do. They have within their pages all decisions, even stupid ones. This is fun. Hey, Mr. Spoon, got any more examples? Ha.
William

[VideCorSpoon]

Sorry for the delay in response… I have been rendered stupid by the seasonal plague. On a side note, scientists believe that the flu comes from two potential sources. One is from pig farms in China, the other is from the ground where the flu virus lays dormant until there is less humidity in the air (winter) and rises to infect us. So which is it? Pigs or dirt? We cracked the genome but we can’t find out definitively where the flue comes from each year. Anyway…

William @ post #4

I think that is a very fundamental problem that the law both accounts for and turns a blind to. You have to think that on some note, Palmer had to consider that the murder could potentially make sure that he never received his inheritance because he would not be able collect as would be locked up in prison. But then again, 1889 is a long time ago. If my cliché knowledge of the law of the old west is correct from sources such as Bonanza, Little house on the Prairie, and The Adventures of Brisco Country Jr., killing someone was not a big deal as it is today. You could be released after a few months, or the second season… I forget which. LOL! On the other hand, you think Palmer would have been given the death penalty for something like that given how lax the law was towards distributing the death penalty.

So I would assume that at this point, you have more of a naturalist tendency towards the law compared to Watchy. You take the law in account, but there are certain instances that call for extra measures, such as denying Palmer the inheritance because he killed him. Seems sensible enough, right? And the ironic thing about Palmers situation is that other people that are trying to get Palmers grandfather’s inheritance are the granddaughters… Palmer’s sisters. Still goes to the family, just not to the murder.

William@ post #6

That’s a good observation, that the positivist Judge Grey is essentially scraping the bottom of the barrel for reasons not to give Palmer the inheritance. But taking a relative position on the law is, at least in my opinion, something very bad for the law abiding citizen. If you encountered judges who ruled by the naturalistic approach (bringing morality and their own opinion into the law), you would hardly be able to keep people from trusting the judicial system. Judge to a point need a level of predictability. In my mind, an example of a good judge is embodied in the persona of Judge Grey (for inheritance) because he is looking at the black and white letter of the law. He is predictable. You know that if you are convicted of a crime, judge Grey will look at the letter of the law at your hearing and nothing else. What if I ran over a cat (some would say on purpose) and the judge that sentenced me was a HUGE animal lover. Instead of a fine or community service, I would actually go to jail. I would be sweating to receive a different judge, so I don’t think that is right.

William @ post #7

This brings to mind the French tribunal system during the “reign of terror” between the fall of the Bourbons and the rise of Napoleon. The common sense and reasoning was a key matter for the revolutionary movement… only it was a relative position. Common sense (which is relative to be sure) would dictate that breaking the law is breaking the law and all are susceptible for the same punishment. Convicts were tried in batches, murders with thieves, etc.

But these people were messed up… like worshipping the bathtub of the slain Murat (a eccentrically crazy French news paper author who wrote in his editions the names of those un-revolutionary and wouldn’t you know it the next day those people would be dead) crazy. Literally worshiping… like putting on an alter and having parades and masses to celebrate Murat. Robespierre was quite pissed. How you like them examples? Fundamental legal issues that turn into examples of worshiping bathtubs.

I'm going to do Palsgraf v Long Island railroad next. Old lady's, train's, high explosive's. Hilarious good times.

Didymos Thomas,

In your example I would assume yes as well, that it is a matter of life insurance fraud. But in the case of Riggs v. Palmer, the inheritance is tangible assets like a farm and a little bit of savings. Although that is an interesting question though… was there any life insurance involved? Insurance in general was becoming increasingly popular since the mid 1850’s, especially estate insurance, so one would assume that there would be some mention of it, especially when it came to precedence or something like that. I’ll have to look that up.

[William]

I feel like such a dolt. I have just come to realize this case was 120 years ago. Hell, back then they lynched you for stealing a horse. What is amazing is this is a case we are still arguing today. Haven't we slept since then? I don't guess it really matters though. It won't change my opinion any. Pre-meditated murder is still pre-meditated murder I don't care what century it fall's in.
William