The Instigator
gfernandez228
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
gizzyfernandez181
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Riggs V's Palmer

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 672 times Debate No: 65589
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

gfernandez228

Pro

1.)On August 13th 1880, Francis B. Palmer created his will and testament in which his two daughters Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston received two small legacies while Elmer E. Palmer his grandson, received the remainder of his estate as long as Elmer outlives Francis and is unmarried and without any issue.
2.)Francis owned a farm and property at the time of the will.
3.)Elmer the grandson knew about his earnings in the will and so before his grandfather Francis can take his earnings away, Elmer murdered Francis by poisoning him so that he can get his reward from the will immediately.
4.)The question is whether Elmer can have his earnings or not.
5.)Since Francis the testator the one who wrote the will is dead, the defendant says the will must go into effect.
6.)There is no way that a will can be controlled or modified.
7.)The purpose of the will is for testators to be able to give away their belongings when they die based on what they legally requested to be done with their belongings.
8.)The intention of the will is for the ones who deserve their earnings from a will receive their will.
9.)However the intention is not for the one who wrote the will to be murdered and for the person under the will to receive the rewards.
10.)No one is allowed to profit from fraud, or take advantage of wrong doings, or to acquire property by committing a crime.
11.)Those rules were applied in the case of New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Armstrong in which a person who kills another person and receives some form of payment from the death of that person could not receive any form of payment. (1.7.4)
12.) A will that is done by Fraud and deception could be made void and checked so that a section of the will may be altered or removed if it is in favor of the person who caused the fraud and deception.
13.) A will that is against public policy, irreligious, or immoral will be made void. (1.8.3)
14.) It was not guaranteed that the murderer was going to outlive the testator or that the murderer would have got his rewards at all.
15.) Palmer could have been taken off the will or maybe have died before his grandfather died.
16.) He wants his property from the will after forcing the guarantee of the will by murdering his grandfather.
17.) Therefore, property is not being taken away, a person will not be rewarded for a criminal action that they committed and so Palmer should not recieve the inheritence from the will.

Non-controversial - (1.), (2.), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (10), (11), (12), (13), (16), (17)

Controversial - (5) Since Francis the testator the one who wrote the will is dead, the defendant says the will must go into effect. This is controversial because just because the defendant is saying that the will must go into effect does not necessarily mean that the will must go into effect and he gets his earnings.

(9) However the intention is not for the one who wrote the will to be murdered and for the person under the will to receive the rewards. This is controversial because it is to vague to say in which it does not specifically say who murdered the testator in this premises. One could say that the testator was murdered by someone else and the people under the will will have to get their earnings under the will. Also it is controversial because there is no law that says that just because the person under the will is murdered by one of the people or the person under a will, does not mean that the person or people under the will do not get their earnings.

(14) It was not guaranteed that the murderer was going to outlive the testator or that the murderer would have got his rewards at all. This is controversial because one cannot assume that the testator was going to live longer than the murderer or whether the murderer would have died before the testator and he would have not been able to claim his rewards from the will.

(15) Palmer could have been taken off the will or maybe have died before his grandfather died. This is controversial because we cannot predict the future and assume that Palmer would have been removed from the will or that he maybe would have passed away before his grandfather.
gizzyfernandez181

Con

(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.
(2.)Allowing the murderer to get his rewards from the will after killing the testator for it, will reward the murderer for his crime.
(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.
(10.) Just because the testator may have changed his will due to the fact of the crime does not effect the real question being asked in this case of whether the court can alter or change the 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.
(13.)Allowing the court to not give the property to the one who is listed on the will to receive the property will then make the possibility for the court to give the property away to someone else that the testator may not have wanted to give the property to.
(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.

Non-Controversial- (1.), (3.), (4.), (5.), (7.), (8.), (9.), (11.), (12.), (14.), (15.), (16.), (17.), (18.)

Controversial- (2.) - Allowing the murderer to get his rewards from the will after killing the testator for it, will reward the murderer for his crime. This is controversial because it is not necessarily rewarding the criminal for his crime, in this case the criminal is being rewarded because it was part of a legal document called a will in which when the person who wrote the will passes away, then the people on the will should get their rewards.

(6.) The rewards that an individual deserved was given to the person even if there was a crime committed. This premise is too vague. No actual evidence was given that states that a person was rewarded all the time even if they did commit a type of crime.

(10.) Just because the testator may have changed his will due to the fact of the crime does not effect the real question being asked in this case of whether the court can alter or change the will. This is controversial because this may not be the question being asked on the view of other people. Others may think that the question of this case is whether or not the defendant should get his inheritance or not, not that should the will be altered or changed.

(13.) Allowing the court to not give the property to the one who is listed on the will to receive the property will then make the possibility for the court to give the property away to someone else that the testator may not have wanted to give the property to. This is controversial because we cannot assume that the testator would have not wanted to give the property to the person the court would have given the property to.
Debate Round No. 1
gfernandez228

Pro

(5) Since Francis the testator the one who wrote the will is dead, the defendant says the will must go into effect. This is controversial because just because the defendant is saying that the will must go into effect does not necessarily mean that the will must go into effect and he gets his earnings. However in this court case, the defendant had said that the testator, who was the one who wrote the will and added his grandson into his will, had passed away. Since the testator passed away, the defendant known as the grandson had said since his grandfather had died the will must go into effect and must given his reward. This is true because a legal will is supposed to go into effect as soon as a person has passed away. The defendant in this case is just trying to get what is legally deserved to him since the will clearly states that the grandson will be rewarded with the property is he outlives his grandfather which technically did happen. It does not state anywhere in the will that if the grandson was to murder his grandfather, as he did in this situation by poisoning him, he will not be able to gain his property. The grandson should then be able to assume that he must be rewarded with the property since he met the legal requirement of the will. A will should be followed the same way it is written and since the grandfather did not put he will not receive any reward if he was to murder him then the defendant has a right to say he should be rewarded however, aside all of this the defendant altered the timing of the will by murdering his grandfather and that does not deserve to be rewarded because if the court cannot alter the will then why should he be able to alter the timing of the will to come true.
(9) However the intention is not for the one who wrote the will to be murdered and for the person under the will to receive the rewards. This is also controversial because it is to vague to say in which, it does not specifically say that the person will not receive his reward if the grandfather is murdered by the grandson. One could say that the testator could have possibly changed his mind if he knew his grandson would have murdered him to get his reward quicker. Just because there is no law that says that the person under the will is murdered by one of the people or the person under a will, does not mean that the person or people under the will do not get their earnings. However, just as was mentioned before, it would have been an entirely different story if the grandfather would have known ahead of time that his grandson was trying to plot against him to kill him.
Going back to the first scenario, the defendant had said that he deserves the rewards of the will because the will has been fulfilled by the grandfathers death. The defendant is also just assuming that. Anything else could have happened before the natural death of the grandfather that could have changed or altered the rewards of the property to be given to the defendant. Lets take for example, the grandfather might have outlived the grandson instead of the grandfather dying before the grandson. Now the will would have had to been altered by the grandfather since the person he requested to give his property to would have passed away and the defendant would have never got his property. Or maybe imagine another simpler situation happening between the grandfather and the grandson. Suppose the grandfather and the grandson would have gotten into an argument. The grandfather may have now had a change of mind in giving the property to his grandson and would have probably removed him from the will which now would have effected the grandson from getting his property. It is like premise nine says, the intention of a will is not to murder the person to be able to get the rewards quicker. The will is made to be able to give the belongings of a person who passes away down to the people he or she wants to pass it down to. He does not deserve to get his rewards from the will because he violated the purpose of a will.
gizzyfernandez181

Con

(2.) - Allowing the murderer to get his rewards from the will after killing the testator for it, will reward the murderer for his crime. This is controversial because it is not necessarily rewarding the criminal for his crime, in this case the criminal is being rewarded because it was part of a legal document called a will in which when the person who wrote the will passes away, then the people on the will should get their rewards. It does not say on the will that the grandson should not be granted his rewards because he murdered his grandfather to earn his rewards faster. A legal document is document that should be fulfilled based on its criteria and since there is not fine print said and/or written down stating anything about murder or death by a person on the will, therefore the defendant should be allowed to receive his money due to the fact that it is a legal document being analyzed and followed not the fact of his crime. A criminal is punished for his actions that he committed such as the poisoning of the grandfather. However that does not say he should not be rewarded because his crime has nothing to do with what the legal document says.
(6.) The rewards that an individual deserved was given to the person even if there was a crime committed. This premise is too vague. No actual evidence was given that states that a person was rewarded all the time even if they did commit a type of crime. There is no fine print in a statute or a law that says a person should not be given a reward or his property due to the fact that a crime was committed. There is however a present legal document which is the will itself and what it does say in clear print is that the defendant should be entitled to his property it does not say anything about exceptions on the will.
In your argument, you used several examples that stated ways on how the defendant would have maybe been denied his property. The problem with all your ways is that they are all just assumed. Take for example the one where you had said that what if the grandson would have passed away before the grandfather did and now the defendant would not been entitled to his part of the property. You also used the example of what if the grandson and the grandfather would have gotten into some sort of confrontation whether it would have been physical or verbal. You had stated that this in some way, shape, or form would have also possibly denied the defendant of getting his part of the property from the will. You had also stated what if the grandfather would have changed his mind about giving his grandson anything in his will at all? All of your ways to try to deny the defendant of his part of the will is all "what-if?" scenarios. You are just assuming several situations that you are not sure whether it would have happened or not.
You had also argued in your argument that the defendant should not get his part of the property from the will because it is like altering the will of the grandfather. That is not true because nothing was physically changed from what was written in the original will. The point is to give the reward to the grandson because it is part of the will. I understand it may seem as if it is "altering" the will due to the fact that the defendant reached his reward by doing his own means. However if the defendant does not get his money that will be altering and changing the will because now you are going against the will of the person that is deceased.
How is it possible that you accuse of the defendant f changing the will when it is the court that wants to alter the will by not changing the will?
and even so, what if none of your "what-if?" scenarios would have never happened? in m opinion the defendant would have still gotten the money. Those "what-if?" scenarios are also a change of the will itself since now you are trying to force the will to change by throwing in ways that would necessarily deny the defendant of his property. The will has not been altered in any way since the grandfather has died why are you trying to force a change?
Debate Round No. 2
gfernandez228

Pro

(14) It was not guaranteed that the murderer was going to outlive the testator or that the murderer would have got his rewards at all. This is controversial because one cannot assume that the testator was going to live longer than the murderer or whether the murderer would have died before the testator and he would have not been able to claim his rewards from the will. However, it is as you had said before, you are right in which we might now be able to assume that the grandson would have died before the grandfather, but things do happen. You cannot say that it is not possible either. Those were just a few examples that seem likely that may happen that would have affected the will. Accidents happen everyday to people and you never know when an accident can literally kill someone. That could have happened in this case with the defendant but even if you do not assume it could happen, the murder crime it self is another example of how things could happen. What id the scenario would have been changed and flipped and instead of the grandfather being killed by the grandson, now the grandfather kills the grandson. Now the will would have to be changed because the defendant would have been dead and now he does get rewarded for anything because obviously you cannot reward a dead person.
(15) Palmer could have been taken off the will or maybe have died before his grandfather died. This is controversial because we cannot predict the future and assume that Palmer would have been removed from the will or that he maybe would have passed away before his grandfather- It is like you said in your part of the argument we do not know for sure who would have outlived who naturally, however the defendant still took the role of ending the life of the grandfather which looks more of a forcible action than the "what-if?" ways I had used. The defendant wanted his property so bad that he killed for it to get it and then you don't call that a forced action? If anybody is forcing the will on any grounds it is the defendant. Whenever someone forces an action to happen it is because they wanted that action to happen their way. In this case the defendant wanted his property, poisoned his grandfather, and now is expecting to get his reward of the grandfather's property after committing a crime to get it? It is an outrages reward, especially because it is not right that a person should be rewarded for killing someone. There are many crimes committed today in which, people commit crimes to get a certain belonging, object or monetary reward for themselves. Some of the cases involve armed robberies and sometimes the armed robbers end up killing the person or group they were trying to rob and run with whatever they able to find or maybe whatever they were looking for. That is similar to this case in which the defendant knew what he wanted, he wanted the grandfather's promised land from the will. Except in this case, there was no actual robbery due to the fact that the grandfather was going to give it to the grandson. But now what if the grandfather would have changed his mind and would have given his land to someone else? now it could possibly be considered robbery because he would have killed his grandfather just so that he can take the land.
As for your questions, Those "ways" as you call it that I proposed as examples were just ways that could have possibly happened that could have changed the will. I was not trying to force anything. This case deals with whether or not the defendant will be allowed to be given his reward that has been encrypted into the will by his deceased grandfather. There is no type of force at all from any side of trying to make the defendant lose any reward you believe he deserves. The point is, why is it ok to reward this defendant for an evil doing that he did especially when it is from the person that he killed? It is not right to reward someone for a wrong and there are many people that commit evil doings and do not get any type of reward at all. why should he get his reward especially after what he did?
gizzyfernandez181

Con

(10.) Just because the testator may have changed his will due to the fact of the crime does not effect the real question being asked in this case of whether the court can alter or change the will. This is controversial because this may not be the question being asked on the view of other people. Others may think that the question of this case is whether or not the defendant should get his inheritance or not, not that should the will be altered or changed- However this is different than the question that you are proposing. The question you proposed for this case is whether the defendant should get the reward of the property from the grandfather even after the crime he committed by poisoning him and killing him. That I disagree with one hundred percent. This case is not whether or not he gets rewarded or not, it deals mostly with whether the court is going to alter and change the will. Like mentioned before a will is a legal document that fulfills the wishes of a deceased person and the court has no laws or statutes that can aid them in changing or altering the will when dealing with this case. There have been other exceptions to other cases that have changed the will due to other exceptions established by the court the laws have applied to the case. However none of the laws deal with the fact of the defendant killing the person to get his reward from the will.
(13.) Allowing the court to not give the property to the one who is listed on the will to receive the property will then make the possibility for the court to give the property away to someone else that the testator may not have wanted to give the property to. This is controversial because we cannot assume that the testator would have not wanted to give the property to the person the court would have given the property to- This example is another reason why the defendant should get his property. Suppose the Court takes away the property of the defendant and now takes the property and decides to pass it on to someone else that the defendant may have not even known. Now there is more changes that have been added to the will by the court implementing more changes to the will. Take for example the court now gives the grandfathers property that was originally designated to go to the defendant, to someone else other than the defendant. We cannot be sure that that is that the grandfather wanted or would have wanted. Maybe the grandfather would have not wanted to give it to someone else, whether he would have known them or not. Or maybe make the scenario worse in which now the land may be given to someone else in the family but the grandfather does not like the person that the property is being given to. Now the court is not only changing and altering the will, but now the court is going against the will by doing things that the grandfather did not want to do or would have not intended to do. That is why the court cannot alter or change the will from the text that it has. Altering and changing the will, will not keep the reason for why wills are for in the first place. A will as mentioned before, should be able to fulfill the wished of the person that requested it and not doing is also breaking the law because a will is a legal document.
As you have stated in your argument it is not right for someone to be rewarded for an evil deed or doing. However is it not also wrong if someone is not rewarded their property or belongings when it was intended for them in the first place? Is it not also wrong if the will of a person is changed when it clearly states what that person wanted to do with their belongings and property? Taking away the property from the defendant is like a second punishment to him. Obviously he is going to punished criminally for the criminal act that he committed against his grandfather. Except now, the defendant is also going to be punished by his reward being taken away from him. That is also wrong. A person should be given what another person intended to give them especially from a deed which specifically states what the person would have wanted.
Debate Round No. 3
gfernandez228

Pro

1.)On August 13th 1880, Francis B. Palmer created his will and testament in which his two daughters Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston received two small legacies while Elmer E. Palmer his grandson, received the remainder of his estate as long as Elmer outlives Francis and is unmarried and without any issue.
2.)Francis owned a farm and property at the time of the will.
3.)Elmer the grandson knew about his earnings in the will and so before his grandfather Francis can take his earnings away, Elmer murdered Francis by poisoning him so that he can get his reward from the will immediately.
4.)The question is whether Elmer can have his earnings or not.
6.)There is no way that a will can be controlled or modified.
7.)The purpose of the will is for testators to be able to give away their belongings when they die based on what they legally requested to be done with their belongings.
8.)The intention of the will is for the ones who deserve their earnings from a will receive their will.
10.)No one is allowed to profit from fraud, or take advantage of wrong doings, or to acquire property by committing a crime.
11.)Those rules were applied in the case of New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Armstrong in which a person who kills another person and receives some form of payment from the death of that person could not receive any form of payment.
12.) A will that is done by Fraud and deception could be made void and checked so that a section of the will may be altered or removed if it is in favor of the person who caused the fraud and deception.
13.) A will that is against public policy, irreligious, or immoral will be made void.
16.) He wants his property from the will after forcing the guarantee of the will by murdering his grandfather.
17.) Therefore, property is not being taken away, a person will not be rewarded for a criminal action that they committed and so Palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.

- The property should not given to the defendant for the simple fact that a criminal should not be rewarded for a criminal act that they committed.
-We would have never known for sure if the defendant would have gotten his reward or not based on a few examples:
1. The defendant could have died before the grandfather did.
2. The grandfather may have not wanted to give him the inheritance form the will.
3. The grandfather may have killed the defendant.
- and other reasons that may have caused the denial of the defendants inheritance.
- Of course we cannot predict the future and what may have happened but the grandfather may have changed his mind if he knew that his grandson was going to kill him for his inheritance.
-There are many people til this day that commit crimes to get things for themselves and end up in jail punished and do not get anything for their crime. Therefore, this case should not be treated any differently than those cases that have been presented.
-The court is not trying to alter or change anything from the will purposely. The court is just trying to decide whether or not the defendant after his criminal action, deserves to get any reward for what he has done to try to get the inheritance.
- The court was not trying to force the change of the will either. The court did not try to change anything physically on the written paper of the will. The will just did not want to give any rewards and therefore did of want to fulfill that part of the will because the grandfather may have not wanted to reward his and child with anything after what he did to get it.
-The defendant took matters into his own hand thinking that he will be able to get his property after a criminal action that he committed. The problem is a criminal must pay for what his actions has done just like every other criminal that is convicted must pay. It does not make him special that he has a will and therefore he should still be able to get what is on it. He should have to pay for his criminal action, he should not be getting payed for doing what he did.
gizzyfernandez181

Con

(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.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.