Should intestate shares be created for charities rather than relatives?

Adam Hirsch (Napoleon Jones Professor of Law and Herzog Endowed Scholar, University of San Diego School of Law) has recently posted on SSRN his article entitled Beyond Privity of Blood: Intestacy and Charity. Here is the abstract of his article:

When individuals die without leaving a will, the law of intestacy functions to distribute their estates to a surviving spouse and/or close blood relatives. Yet, this default regime fails to account for the possibility that some individuals wish to allocate part of their estates to charity. Drawing on empirical evidence, including original data presented here for the first time, this Article advocates building a charitable component into intestacy in those cases where majorities of decedents prefer to establish estate plans transcending traditional heirs. Evidence suggests that this majority preference arises in four situations: (1) where the decedent was extremely wealthy, (2) where the decedent was less wealthy but died without descendants, (3) where the decedent died without descendants and had made charitable donations, irrespective of wealth, and (4) where the decedent died without any known relatives. The Article proposes personalizing the process of intestacy further by granting charitable shares, when called for, to those causes which decedents had individually supported during their lifetimes. The Article assesses the structural costs and benefits of these innovations and concludes that they would not prove excessively complex or administratively burdensome.