In the case of Riggs v. Palmer, the issue at hand is whether or not Elmer Palmer, a man who purposely poisoned his grandfather, should be allowed to collect his inheritance. It is the responsibility of Mr. Palmer's lawyer to give sound legal advice so that he may make a decision, on his own, as to whether or not he wishes to fight for his inheritance. In order for our legal system to be upheld, and as immoral as it may seem, Mr. Palmer must receive the money.
By virtue, laws are intended to be a written moral code meant to govern the people it protects. Laws are written as a means of benefiting the greater good of man, and anything which is intended to, whether it succeeds or not, benefit the greater good is innately moral. In the case of Elmer Palmer it is not the law which has created an irreversibly immoral situation, it is the lack there of.
The law, much like morality, is not without flaw. There are laws who's moral intention's are lost in translation, and there are laws which apply to almost every persons sensibility but have not yet been written. There are few people who would read the case of Riggs v. Palmer who would be on the side of Mr. Palmer, crossing their fingers in hopes that he receives the money, but the fact remains that a law is not a law until it has been written. In the late 1800's when this case took place, there simply was no law stating that if a beneficiary murders the holder of a will, then that individual should not receive the contents of that will. In order to preserve the legal system of law, which was created with the highest of moral intentions,