Should Cain's Children Inherit Abel's Property: Wading into the Extended Slayer Rule Quagmire
![handle is hein.journals/umkc76 and id is 109 raw text is: SHOULD CAIN'S CHILDREN INHERIT ABEL'S
PROPERTY?: WADING INTO THE EXTENDED
SLAYER RULE QUAGMIRE
Karen J. Sneddon*
I. INTRODUCTION
A killer should not benefit from the death of his or her victim. Confusion
exists as to whether this notion precludes not only direct benefits, like inheriting
the victim's property, but also precludes indirect benefits. Indirect benefits
include instances where the individual who inherits the victim's property
subsequently gives the victim's property to the killer. The individual may give
the killer the property to pay for the killer's legal expenses or to support the killer
upon completion of the killer's prison sentence. Generally, the law prohibits an
individual from doing indirectly what he or she cannot do directly. And even
though [t]he law generally will not permit by indirection or circuity what it will
not allow directly,' attempts by courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit, to address the problem of indirect benefits to the killers have
been trapped in a quagmire of conflicting goals and fact-specific decisions. Such
decisions provide little guidance or direction to future decision makers. This
Article argues that a killer should not be able to indirectly benefit from the death
of his or her victim. More specifically, this Article examines case law grappling
with the ability of the killer's relatives to receive the victim's property. This
Article then examines the challenges, feasibility, and necessity of crafting a rule
that prevents killers from indirectly benefiting from the death of their victims.
Finally, this Article proposes a clearly articulated rule that furthers both the
relevant policies and acknowledges the significance of certain facts.
II. A BRIEF CONSIDERATION OF THE AMERICAN SLAYER RULE
One of the earliest recorded episodes implicating the problem of a killer
receiving benefits from the death of his or her victim appears to be the Biblical
story of Cain and Abel.2 Spurred by jealousy, Cain rose up against Abel his
brother, and slew him.,3 Should Cain then receive any of Abel's property?
* Assistant Professor of Law, Walter F. George School of Law, Mercer University. Email:
Sneddonkj@mercer.edu. I would like to thank Professors Joseph E. Claxton and John K. Eason
for reviewing earlier drafts of this Article and providing helpful suggestions.
1 Parker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 282 A.2d 503, 509 (Md. 1971).
2 Mythology, literature, and history are replete with examples of familicide. Examples range from
Seth and Osiris to Othello and Desdemona to Lizzie Borden and her parents. Modem news
broadcasts nightly highlight cases of familicide. For statistics on U.S. domestic and family
violence, see Robin L. Preble, Family Violence and Family Property: A Proposal for Reform, 13
LAW & INEQ. 401, 403-06 (1995) (asserting that the high statistics of domestic and family violence
warrant increased attention from legislatures and courts).
3 Genesis 4:8 (King James).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/umkc76&div=9&collection=journals&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Should Cain's Children Inherit Abel's Property: Wading into the Extended Slayer Rule Quagmire
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most