In the instance of Riggs v. Palmer. the issue at manus is whether or non Elmer Palmer. a adult male who intentionally poisoned his gramps. should be allowed to roll up his heritage. It is the duty of Mr. Palmer’s attorney to give sound legal advice so that he may do a determination. on his ain. as to whether or non he wishes to contend for his heritage. In order for our legal system to be upheld. and every bit immoral as it may look. Mr. Palmer must have the money.
By virtuousness. Torahs are intended to be a written moral codification meant to regulate the people it protects. Laws are written as a agency of profiting the greater good of adult male. and anything which is intended to. whether it succeeds or non. profit the greater good is innately moral. In the instance of Elmer Palmer it is non the jurisprudence which has created an irreversibly immoral state of affairs. it is the deficiency at that place of.
The jurisprudence. much like morality. is non without defect. There are Torahs who’s moral intention’s are lost in interlingual rendition. and there are Torahs which apply to about every individuals esthesia but have non yet been written. There are few people who would read the instance of Riggs v. Palmer who would be on the side of Mr. Palmer. traversing their fingers in hopes that he receives the money. but the fact remains that a jurisprudence is non a jurisprudence until it has been written. In the late 1800’s when this instance took topographic point. there merely was no jurisprudence saying that if a beneficiary slayings the holder of a will. so that person should non have the contents of that will. In order to continue the legal system of jurisprudence. which was created with the highest of moral purposes. Mr. Palmer must have the money.
There are those who may reason that if a jurisprudence is. “not in agreement with morality. ” so it is non a jurisprudence at all. If this were true. so what is to be said of that which is moral but is non a jurisprudence. peculiarly in this instance. It is clear that Mr. Palmer having the money is non moral. The mere presence of morality. no affair how apparent it may look. does non make a jurisprudence. hence. a lacking of morality does non get rid of a jurisprudence. If one were to take the stance that. all things moral are Torahs. so it would be up to Judgess to find morality non legality. and the written jurisprudence would hold no intent.
It is besides frequently argued that the jurisprudence is nil more so a tool. much like a knife. that can be used for either good or evil. Taking that stance. the legal system in the instance of Elmer Palmer is being used for good. in the prosecution of Mr. Palmer for slaying. and for immorality. if he is allowed to have his heritage. The metaphor of the knife is meant to exemplify that the jurisprudence is nil more so an instrument used to function it’s intent.
If one were to accept the fact the Torahs are per se moral. so it would look as tough the attorney is intended to be a wise counsellor. who’s purpose should be to rede his client as to what he should make. based on moral evidences. One could reason this claim by utilizing the illustration of Riggs v. Palmer as a clear representation of what a attorneies function should be. It would look obvious that the attorney should non rede his client to contend for the money. The truth is. and every bit utmost as it may look. that in order for the jurisprudence remain moral the attorney must be nil more than an instrument.
In order for person to go a attorney they must first survey jurisprudence for many old ages. a really intense and enlightening procedure. ensuing in an apprehension of our legal system far beyond the bounds of the ballad individual. It is the attorneies understanding of jurisprudence. and the loopholes which may be found in it. that create a state of affairs in which the attorney must be nil more than instrument. used for functioning it’s intent. It is non up to the attorney to make up one’s mind what is moral for Elmer Palmer. his instrumental intent is to do the lay individual cognizant of all possible options. provided within the per se moral written jurisprudence. Once Mr. Palmer has been good informed by his attorney as to what his legal options are. it will so be up to him to study his options and do his ain moral judgements.
The instance of Riggs v. Palmer is a clear reminder that our system is non perfect. Our system was created with the highest of moral purposes. but legality and morality are both filled with progressive loopholes which allow for a adult male like Elmer Palmer to steal through the clefts in our system. It is nevertheless. instances such as this one which allow us to happen these loopholes and make full them in with new Torahs grounded in their ain moral character.
