Riggs v.Palmer and Speluncean Explorers Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Riggs v.Palmer and Speluncean Explorers - Essay Example Fearing that his grandfather might change his decision in respect of the will Elmer Palmer murdered his grandfather through poisoning. The plaintiffs presented the argument that the will would allow Elmer to profit from his heinous crime. Elmer would be punished under the statute for murder but his claim to the estate could not be invalidated under the terms of either probate law or criminal law (Dworkin). In sharp contrast, the Speluncean Explorers case is purely hypothetical in nature and was written by Lon Fuller for the Harvard Law Review in 1949. A team of five entrapped spelunkers is depicted in the Commonwealth of Newgarth who are able to establish radio contact with their rescue team. The spelunkers are told by the engineers that around 10 days would be required for their extraction (Suber) while the spelunkers relate the total food rations they have to the physicians in the rescue team which are deemed insufficient. Radio contact breaks down and resultantly the spelunkers decide to hold a lottery in order to murder one of their members so that others can consume him for survival. The losing member is executed and eaten up. After the rescue the spelunkers are all convicted for murder but there is debate as to the application of murder sentences to the rescued spelunkers (Fuller). For Riggs v Palmer the majority opinion clearly stated that the plaintiffs were justified in their claims and the eventual outcome reinforced Judge Robert Earl’s opinion. The decision declared that the tenets of universal laws and universal maxims would be violated if Elmer Palmer was allowed to profit from his crime. It was also related that the legislature could not reasonably be expected to foresee any contingencies when laws were being drafted and so such disdainful behavior ought to be punished. This is similar to the views of Justice Keen in the Speluncean Explorers case where he opines that the statutes of law must be upheld in any circumstances no matter what the