The Instigator
bubblegumpb
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ronnywestside
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Riggs v. Palmer

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 11/16/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 833 times Debate No: 65252
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

bubblegumpb

Pro

1.On August 13, 1880, Francis B. Palmer made his last will and testament that would benefit Elmer Palmer, the grandson should he survive Francis Palmer . (1.1)
2.The grandson, Elmer Palmer knew of such provisions and proceeds to murder his grandfather to expedite his inheritance . (1.4)
3.Palmer claims that the law concerning trust and estate makes the will irrevocable . (1.7)
4.Since the will is irrevocable, Palmer is entitled to collect his inheritance . (2.1)
5.Laws and statutes are made to be flexible, not rigid .(3.6)
6.Words of the law may be left ambiguous to include unforeseeable circumstances. (3.6)
7.Interpretations of the law provide the courts with reasoning to support their opinions. (3.6)
8.The rational interpretation is a judicial process where the judges would ask what the original intent of the law was and what would the original law makers do under the current circumstances in order to make the correct judgment . (4.4)
9.Using rational interpretation, the court has decided that "peaceable, reasonable" lawmakers will not intend to reward a man from his crimes under the law . (4.6)
10.Therefore, Palmer should not receive the inheritance pursuant to the will.

Non-Controversial:

1.Elmer Palmer murdered his grandfather Francis Palmer in order to gain his estate through an inheritance.
2.Wills are subject to trust and estate laws.
3.The will was in proper legal form and admitted to probate.

Controversial:

There are 2 controversial issues of this case: (1) Should Palmer be entitled to his inheritance after murdering his grandfather? and (2) Is the court allow to revise a person"s will under special circumstances?

To answer the first question, the court has decided that Palmer should not receive his inheritance after he murdered his grandfather. The defense claimed that the will was prepared and admitted to probate, fully complying with the statute. Therefore Palmer should be allowed to claim his inheritance. This happens to be a special instance where the court had the right to change the will because society does not reward individuals for their bad behavior. The grandfather"s will did not provide an alternative in case of wrongful death but it is reasonable to say that the grandfather had not anticipated one of his family member"s intent on murdering him. There is no record of there being any family dispute and the respondent was living with the deceased as a member of his family (1.4). It is reasonable to speculate that had the grandfather felt any animosity or hostility among his family members, he would have modified his will to prevent such wrongdoings. It is also a matter of keeping the trusting relationship within the family. There is a possibility that if the family knew of the wrongful death provisions, it may create suspicion or distrust. The will was created so that the family members would be provided for when the benefactor passes and by murdering the grandfather, Palmer has willfully forfeited his share of the inheritance.

Further reasoning has provided that a court should be allowed to make certain modifications to a will under special circumstances. This is one of those special circumstances in that the beneficiary murdered the benefactor in order to expedite his inheritance. Trust and estate laws ensure that the documents are genuine and that the distribution of benefactor"s assets and effects are in pursuance to benefactor"s final wishes. The law does not promote the idea that someone should benefit from their crime. Granting the inheritance to Palmer is essentially allowing him to "get away with murder". When the law is left ambiguous, it is up to the courts to decide whether the particular circumstances are under the jurisdiction of the law. Rational interpretation allows the courts to either limit or expand on a statute without deviating from the principles of the statute and applying it to the circumstances. In this case, the court must find out whether the lawmakers of the statute intended for a person to benefit from their crime if no provisions in the will says otherwise.

There are numerous cases that gave the court with reason to believe that Palmer should not receive his inheritance from the will. An example could be used from New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Armstrong where the court decided that monies within a benefactor"s insurance policy should not be granted to the designated beneficiaries when the beneficiaries are found guilty of murdering the benefactor . (7.5) A mother would not reward her child with a toy if she found out the toy was stolen or police officers would not reward the car to the thief if they found that the car was stolen. These examples rest on the fundamental principle that no person shall be rewarded for his crimes. The court may not have the power to re-write a person"s will in its entirety, but it should be able to alter certain allocations under such special circumstances.
ronnywestside

Con

1.On August 13, 1880, Francis B. Palmer made his last will and testament that would benefit Elmer Palmer, the grandson should he survive Francis Palmer .
2.The grandson decided to murder his grandfather to receive his benefits from the will much faster.
3. A will is something created by a person that informs those concerned and the law how to go about their assets.
4. A will informs those concerned exactly what is to be done with their property once they pass.
5. A court cannot assume the creator of a will made a mistake because that will mean that the court is assuming the person who created the will is a reasonable person.
6. If the court assumes that the creator of the will is a reasonable person and they change or adjust a will, then, the judgement of the will, will no longer rest on the hands of the creator but to the courts instead.
7. If a court can adjust or change someones will due to special circumstances, then one can argue that the defendant can then respond to that by saying he would not have murdered the grandfather if he knew he would not have received the assets left to him by the will.
8. The courts claim they will not reward a man from his crimes under law.
9. If the grandson would have killed someone else, he would have received the assets from the the grandfather.
10. Therefore the grandson should receive the assets from the will.

Non Controversial:
1. On August 13, 1880, Francis B. Palmer made his last will and testament that would benefit Elmer Palmer, the grandson should he survive Francis Palmer .
2.The grandson decided to murder his grandfather to receive his benefits from the will much faster.
3. A will is something created by a person that informs those concerned and the law how to go about their assets.
8. The courts claim they will not reward a man from his crimes under law.

Controversial:
4. A will informs those concerned exactly what is to be done with their property once they pass.
One may argue that a will should be left for a court to have the last judgement from a will when it is seen to be problematic but that will take away from what ultimately was expected from the creator of the will. If we agree to allow the courts to predict what a reasonable man would have done under special circumstances than we are allowing the court to adjust the will and assume what the person who might or might not be reasonable to make the decision for them.

5. A court cannot assume the creator of a will made a mistake because that will mean that the court is assuming the person who created the will is a reasonable person.
By allowing the will to predict what a person would have done if they were alive is asking too much from a court. If a will was followed by the people who were a part of it correctly than the court should not punish someone for finding a loop pole in the will. For example, if the person who created the will states that the only way for the person who is suppose to receive to get the assets is by killing someone, can the court than assume the person is reasonable?

6. If the court assumes that the creator of the will is a reasonable person and they change or adjust a will, then, the judgement of the will, will no longer rest on the hands of the creator but to the courts instead.
The point of a will is for the person writing it to allow who ever they assign to follow their wishes with their property. If we allow the courts to adjust this idea, than the very idea of a will is likely to become non-existent.

7. If a court can adjust or change someones will due to special circumstances, then one can argue that the defendant can then respond to that by saying he would not have murdered the grandfather if he knew he would not have received the assets left to him by the will.
This does not mean that the grandson should not be punished by law for the murder, but that he should not be punished for his decision to kill his grandfather by taking away his assets due to the outcome of his grandfather dying regardless of how he died.

9. If the grandson would have killed someone else, he would have received the assets from the the grandfather.
If the grandson killed someone aside from his grandfather, the kid would have received the property from the will. This idea takes away from the idea that the law does not reward a person for their illegal acts. Even though the kid did not kill his grandfather in this situation, he was still eventually given the property when the grandfather died. Therefore, the court can award someone for an illegal act.

Questions:
If the grandson was sent to prison for the murder of the grandfather, how will that be an example of getting away with murder if the kid still is going to prison?
If we allow the courts to alter wills then wouldn't that compromise the essence of what a will is meant to be?
Debate Round No. 1
bubblegumpb

Pro

It would be too much to have the court intervene each time a will is problematic. It is also overbearing on a person's liberty when a person's will is subject to the judgment of the court. When a will is brought to question within the suit, the court must be able to address it and decide how best to serve justice.

The claim where the court cannot assume the testator made a mistake is irrelevant. In fact, the court does not make such assumption. What the court did take into consideration was how prepare the testator was with respect to his grandson"s devious behavior. Just as the concept of unconscionability is vague because it cannot foresee all types of unfairness, so too is the idea that a person's last will and testament may not contain provisions that would cover all kinds of life's situation. In a way, the will can be compared to entering into a contract without fully understanding the terms and obligations. A judge would have to assess the circumstances of an unconscionable contract much the same way in assessing the construction of the will. Therefore, it is not asking too much of the court to assume what a testator would have done should he had prepare for his grandson"s intentions.

The court"s judgment is only asserting that inheritance should not be granted to Palmer alone, the judgment did not alter the will in its entirety. The court was only brought to address this one specific issue, no more no less. To declare that the essence of the will is lost is far-fetched. The original will remains, only the provision granting Palmer"s inheritance is no longer in effect. It is also important to remember that the judgment of the court sets a precedent for future courts. This precedent will essentially mean that no person should profit from a will by murdering the testator. The precedent does not mean the final judgment of the will is at unlimited discretion of the court. Your claim was "the court should not punish someone for finding loopholes in the will". Looking at it from an unconscionable contract"s perspective, there are certain cases where the court deemed it necessary to punish someone exploiting loopholes by declaring the contract unconscionable. When someone exploits a loophole in a contract the severity of the consequence is what brings the case to court. Once the contract is under the scrutiny of the court, judges will have to determine what the loophole was, what the original intent of exploiting the loophole, assess the damage caused by the exploitation and other facts of the case. This is the same concept in this case. The judges determined: (a) the loophole was the absence of a provision concerning wrongful death; (b) the original intent was to expedite the inheritance; and (c) the consequence of such omission being the murder.

With respect to the 7th claim. If the grandson claimed that he would not have murdered his grandfather if there was no inheritance to be claimed upon his death, then it is a clear admission on the part of the defendant that this was the ONLY intention and condition for his murder; to profit from the murder. Without the idea of inheritance, he would not have such devious thoughts about getting rid of the grandfather. This is all the more reason to deny him of his inheritance. If Palmer murdered a stranger and served his sentence then yes, he would probably receive the inheritance from his grandfather and that would not be consider "getting away with murder" because they are 2 separate cases and the intent behind the devious act is different. What the court is concerned about is the intent and motivation for the murder. By granting him the inheritance after the murder, he did "get away with murder"; he got what he intended to get from his bad deeds. In addition, Palmer is not being punished further by not being granted his inheritance. The court is essentially taking away something that was never in the possession of the defendant. It is not an additional punishment if the defendant does not get what is intended to him. If my intention is to buy coffee but the coffee shop is closed, the coffee shop is not taking away my coffee. I never had the coffee to begin with.
ronnywestside

Con

Response to paragraph 1:
I agree that it is over bearing on a persons liberty when a persons will is subject to the judgement of the court and that is why I am stating that the court should not be able to decide the outcome of a will. If a father dies and leaves a will stating that he wants to leave everything he owns to one son and not the other, should the court grant the other kid half to provide justice? If your answer is yes, than we shall have to discuss the very essence of what a will is and what is the point of it.

Response to paragraph 2:
In saying that the court took into consideration how prepared the testator was, does that not say the court assumed the testator was not prepared for the grandson devious behavior? In order for the court to accept that the testator was not prepared, they have to believe he was not because they clearly did not ask him because he is dead. The difference with an unconscionable contract and a will is that two parties are needed to agree on something one party is offering. A will is different because there is no need for another party to agree to the creator of the wills demands. Aside from that, with a contract both parties are alive so a court does not have to assume anything, instead they just have to do their due diligence and find out from that person what went on with that unconscionable contract. With a will you cannot do that because when a will is being used, it because the person who made it passed away.

Response to paragraph 3:
Just because the will was not altered entirely, does that justify the court changing it somewhat? The essence of the will was that if the grandfather passes, the grandson gets a share of his property which is the very essence of the will so how has the essence of the will not been altered? If one is comparing this case to an unconscionability case then would having case precedent be a good idea when you want to keep these kind of rules as broad as possible? When this case was first bought up to court, the grandson had won the case and the court agreed that the grandson should keep the property from his grandfather. It was not until the appeal that they reversed what was initially agreed by the court. This tells me that the courts it self do not have a concrete answer for this case. The difference between this situation and a case involving an unconscionable one is that the person who created the unreasonable contract or the person who found the loophole or exploit the contract are alive and the court is able to determine whether or not one meant to do a certain action. It is hard to compare this particular case to a case that involves a unconscionable contract is because the person who created the will is dead so in return one is suppose to assume that persons intentions instead of asking them or checking how they feel about what happened.

response to paragraph 4:
In the seventh claim, the intention was not to use this as a defense for the grandson, rather to explain how the court is rationalizing its decision through hypothetical speaking and situations. If the court can rationalize their solution by saying the only reason the grandson did not receive the money is because if the grandfather was alive he would not approved of this then why cant the grandson say "he would not have murdered his grandfather if there was no inheritance to be claimed upon his death". We can agree that this was not the best example if looked through a literal sense so we can agree to not debate this particular claim later on. If we can treat the grandson killing someone else and later on receiving the money from the will as not rewarding someone for their evil actions, then why cant we treat these two separate actions like two different cases. As soon as he killed his grandfather and the will is in effect, the property is in his possession

Controversial responses and questions:
"If my intention is to buy coffee but the coffee shop is closed, the coffee shop is not taking away my coffee. I never had the coffee to begin with".
If we were to use this analogy then it is not the case that the coffee shop was closed rather that after my coffee was given to me, it was taken away because of something i did that was not approved or supported by the people in the coffee shop.
Debate Round No. 2
bubblegumpb

Pro

In response to your example where there is a preference in assets distribution then you are right, the court should not interfere. However, this case goes beyond the circumstances of whether the will itself is fair or not. Fairness with respect to the proportion of inheritance is irrelevant. The facts are that this case is simple that a murder has been committed for no other reason by to receive the inheritance. This is what the court is concerned with. I would refer back to an earlier example in Round 1: a mother would not reward a toy to her child if she had known that the same toy was stolen. Morals tell us the difference between right and wrong. Stealing is immoral, therefore one should not steal. One may reasonably question what morals has to do with law. The answer can be found in Devlin"s theory from the Morals and Criminal Law reading.

Devlin theorize that there are 2 main elements of society: (1) politics; and (2) morals. That society has the right to enforce certain morals in society because it is the social moral bonds that holds society together. Laws against stealing and killing provides for both security and welfare of a society and moral values. The security and welfare of a society refers to protecting the victim and people do not have to live in fear. The moral principle tells us that both stealing and killing is wrong.

When the court decided that Palmer did not deserve his inheritance, the judges did not only interpret the law"s meaning but the decision was also based on a moral principle. One does get rewarded for their misdeeds. The court also had to consider what kind of precedent they are setting up for the future courts to follow. The court could not use reason by analogy because there was no such law and this case is the first of its kind. This would explain why the court has to go through some great lengths to try and justify their reasoning.

I would have to disagree with your claim that a will and a contract are different things. On the contrary, a will is a type of contract. It is a written agreement between parties. A will is somewhat like a promissory note where one party agrees to certain future obligations to another with the state being a witness to such future obligations. If a will is like a contract, then it can also be subjected to the idea of unconscionability. Usually if a will is considered unconscionable, the surviving party(ies) of the will can sue where the court will make the final judgment depending on the circumstances. It is like a regular trial where the judge will have to consider the opinions of the surviving party(ies) and read all of the wills (including the superseded will, if any) and decide what would the testator have done in such a situation. Most suits that are brought before the court concerning a will, the testator probably passed already. By way of illustration only, Testator"s drafts a will ("Will #1") and sends it to probate that grants child 1, 2, 3 and 4 equal distribution of the Testator"s assets upon the Testator"s death. Time passed and the Testator decides to readjust the distribution of inheritance for the Testator"s children. The Testator drafts a new will ("Will #2") that would supersede Will #1 that grants child 1 with 75% of the Testator"s assets, child 2 and 3 will each receive 25% of the Testator"s assets and child 4 is left with nothing. What happens if Will #2 was signed but never made it to probate? Child 1 can argue that the Will #2 was signed, therefore the final intentions of the Testator while Child 4 can argue that since Will #2 was never granted probate, Will #1 is still in effect, therefore Child 4 is entitled to the Testator"s assets. How will this issue be resolved? Child 1 and 4 will most likely bring the case to the court to let the court decide the final judgment of the will. In this example, the court is asked to change the will and if the court decides to rule in favor of Will #2, the court is changing the will in its entirety; the very essence of the original will. This is similar to the Palmer case in that the appellants had asked the court to change the will, albeit not in its entirety.

Using the coffee example from the previous round, you claimed it was not because "the coffee shop was closed but rather the coffee was given to me, it was taken away..". I would have to have the coffee in the first place in order be taken away. If the coffee shop is closed, you cannot get coffee. If you do not have coffee, then the coffee cannot be taken away. Therefore, the coffee shop cannot take away something it has not given.
ronnywestside

Con

Response to paragraph one:
If you go to any dictionary in the English language, one can be sure to find that a synonym for justice is fairness. One mentions this because in your argument you state that " this case goes beyond the circumstances of whether the will itself is fair or not" which will then mean that the court is not doing what it is suppose to do which is to make sure they are following the justice code which includes being fair. A even simpler way to view this case is by solely acknowledging that a murder took place. The only issue when referencing to the example of the mother goes back to my reasoning with the will, that how does one know if the mother is a reasonable woman to begin with. Another reason one may not agree with this issue is because when looking at an issue like this that deals with morals, one might feel differently from what someone else think or feels but both are necessarily wrong or right.

Response to paragraph two:
Whether what side you are on and arguing for, both parties can agree that killing and stealing is wrong. One can argue that this paragraph is not relevant to the argument at hand so it can be difficult to argue against these statements since they do not contribute to the main argument.

Response to paragraph three:
One can understand why the court will stand by their motto of not rewarding someone for their misdeeds. The concern for this particular case is that the kid who killed his grandfather was not being rewarded for killing his grandfather. He was convicted and had to deal with the consequences. A result of his grandfather dying rewarded him of the property, not the actually killing of the grandfather. When it comes to case precedent, the beauty of having a case that has never occurred is that you can set a very broad precedent to allow more discretion for the judges and it decreases the chances for people to utilize loopholes like the concept of unconscionably.

Response to paragraph four:
A will and a contract are not the same thing because if a will is a type of contract then that means when something is a contract it does not mean it is always going to be a will. A will cannot be tampered with and justified with the concept of a type of unconscionable contract because this will then mean that the wills very essence are being taking away. My issue with the judges decision was the fact the the grandson was charged with murder and the court further punished him by altering a will which was completely legal just to punish the kid twice which is unfair, thus making this a question of justice. Is it justice to punish a kid twice for one act? If so does that now set case precedent for future cases? The example used in this paragraphs fails to compare to the example of the situation we are arguing about because there are two contracts created so the court is not assuming anything because they have the information for what the testator initially wanted and what he ultimately wanted. In the case being argued the court has taken it upon them selves to assume the testator was a reasonable man as opposed to the example where they have proof of what the person wanted because it was already written.

Response to paragraph five:
With the coffee example was simply trying to give another analogy to better understand what you were trying to say. I see the coffee shop like that grandfather, the coffee is the will and the customer was the grandson. I feel like the grandson walked into the shop, got his coffee and the court decided to take it away. That is not fair because the owner of the coffee shop granted the grandson coffee.

Concerns:
Throughout the debate many things have been argued for and against. Some of my concerns have not been addressed and whether that is because of the lack of rounds or the large amount of issues that not all of them can be addressed. Never the less i feel that certain issues should be at least re-said.
Concern1: How does the court establish the grandfather was a reasonable man?
Concern2: If a will falls under a contract if put into categories how are they the same?
Debate Round No. 3
bubblegumpb

Pro

1.On August 13, 1880, Francis B. Palmer made his last will and testament that would benefit Elmer Palmer, the grandson should he survive Francis Palmer . (1.1)
2.The grandson, Elmer Palmer knew of such provisions and proceeds to murder his grandfather to expedite his inheritance from his grandfather"s will. (1.4)
3.A will is a form of contract.
4.Contracts are declared unconscionable under certain circumstances.
5.Certain provisions in a will can be changed by the courts under certain circumstances.
6.Through rational interpretation, the court found that the grandfather was ill-prepared for Palmer"s devious intentions and would not have rewarded Palmer for his murder.
7.The court further decided that this was not considered a second punishment to Palmer because the court is not taking away something that is already in Palmer"s possession.
8.Therefore, Palmer should not receive the inheritance pursuant to the will.

I believe that my argument continues to stand. To respond to the example of the mother and the stolen toy, it is reasonable to assume that the "right" thing to do would be to not reward the child with the stolen toy. I agree with you in that when it comes to morals, there is no definite right or wrong but when it comes to public morality as in the moral standards of a society as a whole, murder is wrong. Even though the court does not based their decision on morals alone, it could be a reason that influenced their decision. The court can assume that granting Palmer his inheritance is immoral. (Not rewarding someone of their misdeed). I think we can both agree that this is not the real reason but that it played a role in forming the court"s decision.

I agree with you in that a synonym for justice is fairness but in some cases I think it is a misconception. We all think of justice as being fair, equality and impartiality. The term justice is so vague that it cannot be pinpointed to one specific meaning. Another definition of justice is doing what is right and we can both agree that sometimes the right thing to do may not be fair or equal. Ticketing someone for jaywalking may not be fair because everyone else is doing it but according to the law, issuing the ticket was the right thing to do. A criminal gets to walk away from his crimes because most of the evidence collected violated the 4th amendment. It may not be fair, but according to the law it was the right thing to do because criminals are still citizens therefore they have rights too.

Response to concern 1: When a will is admitted to probate, the surrogates court determines the validity of the will. When probate is granted, it means the will is declared valid and the testator as a reasonable person. One cannot execute a will if it is determine that one is not in the right state of mind. There are many procedures in executing a will to determine whether the person is reasonable. In this case, the will was admitted to probate, therefore the court can assume that the grandfather was a reasonable man.

Response to concern 2: A will is a sufficient condition to being a contract. If a will, then a contract. This claim is sound. The opposite of that condition is untrue when the subjects are flip: If a contract, then a will. This is an invalid claim because not every contract is a will. Every will is a contract. Round 3 paragraph 4 addresses how a will is a type of contract.

Side Note: The hypothetical in Round 3 paragraph 4 is relevant to this argument in that there are one key factor. Why did Will #2 not make it to probate? Is there a reason for the delay? Is it simply because the testator died before he had the chance or something else holding him back? This is where the court has to decide which document will be valid.

Lastly, You have the parties in the coffee example correct, except the grandson walking into the coffee shop. What if the coffee shop was set on fire? (analogy against murdering the grandfather) Coffee shop burnt to the ground, grandson cannot get coffee from the coffee shop. Therefore, the court did not take away the grandson"s coffee when he did not have it to begin with. The court is simply deciding whether Palmer should get his inheritance BEFORE the inheritance is distributed. Thus cannot take away something Palmer did not receive in the first place.
ronnywestside

Con

1.On August 13, 1880, Francis B. Palmer made his last will and testament that would benefit Elmer Palmer, the grandson should he survive Francis Palmer .
2.The grandson decided to murder his grandfather to receive his benefits from the will much faster.
3. A will is something created by a person that informs those concerned and the law how to go about their assets once they pass away.
4. A court cannot assume the creator of a will made a mistake because that will mean that the court is assuming the person who created the will is a reasonable person.
5. If the court assumes that the creator of the will is a reasonable person and they change or adjust a will, then, the judgement of the will, will no longer rest on the hands of the creator but to the courts instead.
6. The courts claim they will not reward a man from his crimes under law.
7. If the grandson would have killed someone else, he would have received the assets from the the grandfather.
8. Therefore the grandson should receive the assets from the will.

Non-controversial:
1.On August 13, 1880, Francis B. Palmer made his last will and testament that would benefit Elmer Palmer, the grandson should he survive Francis Palmer .
2.The grandson decided to murder his grandfather to receive his benefits from the will much faster.
3. A will is something created by a person that informs those concerned and the law how to go about their assets once they pass away.
6. The courts claim they will not reward a man from his crimes under law.
7. If the grandson would have killed someone else, he would have received the assets from the the grandfather.

Controversial:
4. A court cannot assume the creator of a will made a mistake because that will mean that the court is assuming the person who created the will is a reasonable person.
5. If the court assumes that the creator of the will is a reasonable person and they change or adjust a will, then, the judgement of the will, will no longer rest on the hands of the creator but to the courts instead.

Response to paragraph 1:
I believe my argument still stands to be correct. My issue with the mother with the stolen toy is that you are not rewarding the kid with a stolen toy because the kid him/her self does not know it is stolen. All they see is a new toy. The mother is the one doing the evil deed by giving the kid a stolen toy but that guilt or evil deed lands in the hand of the mother and not the boy/girl. And yes i also agree that this case was not based on moral alone but it did play a small role which is why i feel the morality argument holds little weight.

Response to argument 2:
I agree that justice is a very vague term and can be shown and represented in many different ways but i cannot agree with you when you mention that doing the right thing may not be fair. For example with the jaywalking anecdote you mention it is not fair that people jaywalk all the time and when someone actually gets a ticket for it, it is not fair but what is not fair would be that people do not get ticketed all the time for doing it. Then that would have eliminated any unfairness but we as a society have non-verbally agreed that we prefer getting a jaywalking ticket once in a blue instead of being "fair" and receiving one every time we do jaywalk because we feel that is fair and cheaper for us. A criminal would get to walk away from a crime due to lack of evidence because the system gives them a fair chance to. So it is very fair. If criminals were not able to defend them selves with their rights that were given to us when this country was founded than that would be the real injustice.

Response to paragraph 3:
My argument is not that at the time of the will, the grandfather was a reasonable man. My argument is that the court has no proof that if he was here right now, one would not know if he was still a reasonable man.

Response to paragraph 4:
i was only responding to this comment "If a will is like a contract, then it can also be subjected to the idea of unconscionability" because you state that a will is like a contract so we both agree that a will is a sufficient condition to being a contract but in the above quote you said it is like a contract.

Response to paragraph 5:
I still feel like that example is not important for this particular argument for the same reasons i gave in the previous rounds.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Harold_Lloyd 2 years ago
Harold_Lloyd
Most states prevent an heir from profiting from their criminal acts.

Do you really think this situation has never arisen before??
No votes have been placed for this debate.