Is law a science?

>>8814290
No

File: 1491601748279.jpg (82KB, 1528x1078px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1528x1078px

>>8814290
Yes, because you can measure and therefore quantify portions of penance, mercy, and rewards.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1PqPMxWhQZw

>>8814301
None of what this idiot says is correct. We cannot quantify any of these things.

File: A7X logo wallpaper 01 2560x1440.jpg (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

>>8814307
One penality is greater than the other, there you go, a difference in scale, you can measure this with a numbering grade system pertaining to law.

>>8814311
What? You don't even have a unit. You seem to lack any fundamental grasp of what it means for something to be measurable. Which penalty is more severe, a life sentence or a sentence to death? Until you can quantify 'severity', which you cannot because there are no metrics designed for this, you cannot compare sentences.

>>8814290
Maybe it's possible to create a game theoretic (or other mathematical) model to describe it. Then you can turn it in to a science, but by default I would say no.

>>8814290
yes

>>8814290
>gay drawfag leaves his signature at the bottom
smdh

File: ouserhat56_sb_47.jpg (179KB, 1000x755px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1000x755px

>>8814321
>>8814321
Penalty*

>You seem to lack any fundamental grasp of what it means for something to be measurable.

That would appear to be you, if you ask me. You also sound like an atheist dog. Life in prison is more merciful than the death penalty if they are guilty, because they risk burning in Hell for centuries or even millenia as an additional charge from God.

>>8814397
You are entitled to whichever religious beliefs you have, but if you start talking about the afterlife in the hopes of making a cogent argument for the scientific status of law, you are a complete and utter mongoloid. Supernatural claims have no place in science, and any reference to them in trying to construct a metric for penalty is a clear flag for scientific illiteracy.
Go back to >>>/pol/ where you truly belong. You faggots have no business on /sci/.

Law is state of thoughts and set of rules and will to execute or incapacity to resist the execution along the rules etc.
The nearest science mostly obsessed with similar concepts does have a label of "mental condiion or mental ilness" for the stuff that law is.

File: 1491429823049.jpg (86KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 600x450px

No unlike science, Law reserves the right to be able to move it's own goal posts in both application and interpretation for the sake of social order in an ever changing society.

I suppose it's possible to argue it's similarities to the formal sciences though.

>>8814409
Mongoloid is also a race, also have you ever heard someone say "You crossed the line"? It means you can map this stuff and there measure it too.

>>8814515
>Mongoloid is also a race
Mongoloid in this context obviously means someone who had Down Syndrome. This is not ambiguous.

> have you ever heard someone say "You crossed the line"? It means you can map this stuff and there measure it too.

No, there is no standard for crossing the line. It is based on individual intuitions on the matter, which are not universal. This is not scientific. Law is not scientific, and it doesn't claim to be. I don't understand how anybody could conceive of law as anything resembling science unless they had never done science themself.

>>8814290
No and hopefully someone will automatize it.

>>8814290
is there a unifying theory?

>>8814290
Law is common sense

File: C2f3ZmnUoAAhZQW-1.jpg (78KB, 409x394px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 409x394px

I wouldn't consider it as a science

Not really. There is a lot more subjectivity involved.

Hello I passed the bar and in a few weeks I'll be sworn as a lawyer so maybe I can answer this

the law is not a science, its more an art and a way of resolving problems with procedure and patience. That said, most lawyers have a great deal of respect for science (as do most judges) and when scientific answers are legally relevant they are given such great weight that a lawyer can ask (or the judge on his own) can decide that the court should take special notice of them and give outsized weight in their decision.

>>8814531
>No, there is no standard for crossing the line. It is based on individual intuitions on the matter, which are not universal. This is not scientific. Law is not scientific, and it doesn't claim to be.

You are a nihilist atheist faggot who think morality is subjective when it's not, it is objective. Also Law itself has its basis in the very scientific and philosophical concept call the anthropic principle, based on sacred geometrical divine laws.

>>8817617
You never did very well in school, did you? Maybe that should have been your first hint that you aren't very bright. I would from now on avoid sharing my opinions if I were you, lest you embarrass yourself more.

>>8814397
That's an opinion, EVEN WITHIN a religious context. Maybe, for example, I might believe that the death penalty is better, because the sinner has already sinned, and they shouldn't be given the opportunity to make it worse for themselves by living a life in jail; a place rife with sin and lacking in any way to repent.

That's all bullshit, but what you said is just as bullshit. My bullshit just gives the other side to what you said, which is your opinion.

This is why you can't quantify punishment: justice is simply a concept created by us to serve whatever root societal function we need it to, like getting rid of those hurting society by locking them in jail. Each person conceptualises justice in their own unique way based on their own unique set of experiences throughout life, and so any scale created to measure justice and punishment will be unique to the individual who created it.

>>8817617
You don't know what nihilist means. You don't know what philosophy is. You don't know what scientific means. You don't know what subjective/objective mean. You don't know what the anthropic principle is; you're just name dropping at this point, that is assuming it's not jibberish. You don't know what anything means.

>sacred geometrical divine laws

Define this as well. Don't use big words that sound good to seem educated on the matter. This is probably complete jibberish. But if you do have something behind this, I would like you to explain because I'm curious. Don't just spew more shit too, actually explain something in a way that's not vague, and that actually shows some deeper understanding of the subject.

TL;DR you don't sound like you know what you're talking about. Shut up